Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Justices Aren’t Even Pretending Anymore

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court Justices Aren’t Even Pretending Anymore

    Trump-appointee Neil Gorsuch spoke to the Federalist Society on Friday, alongside former Vice President Mike Pence and Gov. Ron DeSantis.



    Two key members of the Supreme Court’s dominant conservative majority are getting bolder about their links to members of the right-wing intelligentsia and Republican political elite, as concerns mount about the impartiality of the court.

    Justice Neil Gorsuch appeared at a Federalist Society event Friday, making a speech that was closed to the media. And the same day, the watchdog group American Oversight released a June 2021 email obtained via a public records request in which Ginni Thomas—wife of Justice Clarence Thomas—tells the office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis that DeSantis “has been in contact” with her husband “on various things as of late.”

    https://www.vice.com/en/article/bvny...ending-anymore
    Last edited by L.A. BRONCOS FAN; 02-08-2022, 05:47 AM.

  • #2
    The U.S. Supreme Court is about to hear a case in which plaintiffs are asking that Vice President Dick Cheney be required to reveal who is on his energy task force.

    Last month, Cheney took a Louisiana hunting trip along with his guest, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. The U.S. government flew them, their security staff, and a number of vehicles. Considering that Cheney’s case involves energy policy, it’s significant that their local host was an oil services tycoon. Afterward, Scalia told questioners with a straight face that he remains impartial in Cheney’s case.

    https://www.theunion.com/opinion/che...-hunting-trip/

    Comment


    • #3
      Ginni Thomas' political activism brings scrutiny to Justice Clarence Thomas and the Supreme Court's recusal rules

      Recent revelations about the political activism Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, have renewed scrutiny about how the Supreme Court approaches questions of potential conflicts of interest with the cases that the justices are reviewing.

      https://edition.cnn.com/2022/02/04/p...sal/index.html

      Comment


      • #4
        Meh, is what it is. In todays climate, you win power at all costs and punish the other side. That's what civilizations that are crumbling do. Win some, lose some.

        Best be prepared to have a plan B, this is going to get ugly LOL

        Comment


        • #5
          Back in the day, under Reagan, Gingrich, et al, the narrative changed. A new propaganda was launched. Those who were opposed to the politics of the Reaganites became, not just political opponents; They became the enemies of America, and the enemies of Christianity, which was melded through the so-called "Moral Majority" with Reagan himself. They didn't just utilize Nixon's Southern Strategy, they took the next step and blended with the white evangelicals; A ploy which won them the entire South (and what came to be know as the "Red States").

          When Murdoch arrived on our shores, he started beating that drum for all it was worth - You are either on the side of the Right or you are the enemy of "our" country and "our" religion. They picked up the strands of the Red Scare and put them back to work. It has only metastasized since then, radicalized by the zealots of the Tea Party and fully bloomed under the narcissistic personality cult of Trump. There is no longer the service to the ideology (hell, they don't even bother to write platforms anymore). Now, it is servility to the personality - loyalty to the master.

          The number one goal of that radical movement was always to pack the courts and create a single party state - eliminate the opposition. This has been McConnell's life-long zealotry (in which he has succeeded). They also launched an all-out assault on the progressive movement in the US which had been going on (ironically) since TR, attacking unions and dismantling regulations and the tax structure (via the new Friedman "greed is good" ideology), releasing full-on corporate domination of the economy focused only on the good of the shareholder.

          The weird thing is that, since those days, the ideology of the Right has morphed from conservatism into flat-out fascism (with assistance even from cowardly Dems through the stages of neoliberalism and the neocons).

          The American Right is now intent on killing American democracy. What was once the "fringe" has become the masters of the party. Those who were there at the beginning of this radicalization (Gingrich, Bannon, etc.) are still there. Now they are calling for the overthrow of elections and the incarceration of anybody who tries to enforce the laws of the USA to investigate or prosecute Trump, their fuhrer.


          The GOP reminds me of the story of Michael Corleone; The methods he uses to fulfill his most passionate goal, the preservation of his family, are the very thing that destroys his family - down to killing his own brother.

          Comment


          • #6
            Analysis: Supreme Court may completely hollow out the Voting Rights Act by 2024

            The Supreme Court's action late Monday in an Alabama redistricting case foreshadows a new threat to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and electoral opportunities for Blacks and other racial minorities nationwide.

            https://apple.news/AXe-VAUIeTHeu5iaekemPQw

            Comment


            • #7
              New York Times story about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, sparks social-media outcry

              Click image for larger version  Name:	horizontal?width=700&size=1.778975741239892&pixel_ratio=2.jpg Views:	0 Size:	398.8 KB ID:	53927

              The Times piece examines Ginni Thomas’s role in the movement to keep Donald Trump in the White House after his loss in the 2020 presidential election

              ...The Times isn’t the first publication to delve into the political ties between Clarence and Ginni Thomas, however. As recently as last month, The New Yorker magazine reported on the couple with a story that asked, “Is Ginni Thomas a threat to the Supreme Court?” The Washington Post also looked at Ginni Thomas’s involvement in the election advocacy for Trump.

              https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sh...more_headlines

              Comment


              • #8
                US supreme court blocks new Wisconsin voting maps in boost for Republicans


                Click image for larger version

Name:	5156.jpg?width=620&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=740199e54ca9e3e4fe14b97cc58afd2e.jpg
Views:	120
Size:	57.2 KB
ID:	69380

                The US supreme court threw out Wisconsin’s new state legislative maps on Wednesday, in a ruling that boosts Republicans and takes aim again at one of the last remaining provisions to protect voting discrimination.

                The ruling is the latest of many in recent years in which the US supreme court has been hostile to voting rights. In an unsigned ruling, the court took issue with the decision to add an additional Black-majority state assembly district in the Milwaukee area, raising the total in the map to seven. The Wisconsin supreme court picked the plan, drawn by Tony Evers, the state’s Democratic governor, earlier this month.

                https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ps-republicans

                Comment


                • #9
                  The embarrassing Mrs Thomas
                  There is no conflict between Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife’s unhinged activism. That is the problem


                  Click image for larger version

Name:	20220319_USD000_0.jpg
Views:	120
Size:	199.7 KB
ID:	69434


                  Virginia thomas made headlines this week when she confirmed that she had attended Donald Trump’s pre-insurrection protest in Washington, dc, on January 6th 2021. Frankly, it would have been surprising if she hadn’t.

                  A well-connected activist, at the paranoid edge of the conservative establishment, Mrs Thomas was known for her fierce culture-warring long before Mr Trump made it Republican orthodoxy. The 65-year-old Omahan abhors feminism and affirmative action, and believes “America is in a vicious battle for its founding principles” against the “deep state” and a “fascist left” in which “transsexual fascists” are prominent. Schooled in such views by Steve Bannon, a former comrade of Mrs Thomas’s, Mr Trump was happy to promote them. Mrs Thomas was allegedly known in the Trump White House as the “wrecking-ball” (which by its standards was saying something) for her persistence in lobbying the president.

                  Yet what sets Mrs Thomas apart is not only her activism but also the fact that she is married to a Supreme Court justice, Clarence Thomas. No other scotus spouse has played such an active political role. And given that Justice Thomas often appears at her work dos and fulsomely lauds her “24/7…defence of liberty”, perhaps no scotus couple has, either. In the light of Mrs Thomas’s efforts to spread Mr Trump’s lie that the 2020 election was stolen, this has become newly contentious.

                  “LOVE MAGA people!!” she wrote on social media as they gathered on insurrection day. “GOD BLESS EACH OF YOU STANDING UP or PRAYING.” She later distanced herself from the violence that ensued (she says she went home early, because it got chilly). She has also downplayed it—including by signing a petition excoriating a House investigation into the riot, for which nearly 800 people have so far been charged with crimes, as a partisan witch-hunt against “private citizens who have done nothing wrong”.

                  Recent exposés of Mrs Thomas’s activities have focused on the potential conflict they represent for her husband. The New York Times suggests Mr Trump patronised her only to cultivate Justice Thomas. The New Yorker warns that the court’s conservative majority is shortly expected to rule on significant affirmative-action, gun-rights and abortion cases in favour of activists associated with Mrs Thomas. Many note that Justice Thomas was the only dissenter from a Supreme Court decision that forced Mr Trump to comply with the January 6th inquiry.

                  In Justice Thomas’s defence, none of that looks like a clear breach of conflict-of-interest rules. His jurisprudence, it should also be noted, is in theory sufficient to explain most of his judgments without recourse to his politics. A committed originalist, he is one of the more intellectually consistent jurists on the bench, as well as the most conservative. Yet, in a divided country, appearances matter. Public trust in the court is plummeting precisely because it is viewed as too political. That makes Justice Thomas’s cheerleading for his wife’s activism reckless at best.

                  It is also at odds with his concern to avoid appearances troubling to conservatives. Justice Thomas was a lone dissenter on the court against the recent expansion of postal voting on the basis that, even if it were not—as Republicans claimed—fraudulent, he feared it might seem to be. While ignoring a real, if exaggerated, liberal concern about his wife’s activism, in other words, he took care to mollify a baseless conservative gripe.

                  He is hardly the first justice to reveal his partisan colours. Ahead of the general election in 2016 the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted Mr Trump. Two years later Brett Kavanaugh delivered a seething partisan rant at his Senate confirmation hearing. He claimed that Democratic opposition to his nomination to the Supreme Court was not in response to the allegation of sexual impropriety he faced, but rather “pent-up anger about President Trump” and “revenge on behalf of the Clintons”. However, Justice Kavanaugh’s partisanship has been somewhat muffled by his institutionalism, which urges restraint. Justice Thomas’s jurisprudence, by contrast, appears to amplify his politics.

                  His take on the constitution’s original meaning not only leads him to be unerringly supportive of conservative causes, from gun rights to Mr Trump. It has also made him unusually dismissive of opposing views, even when enshrined in legal precedent. When a past judgment is “demonstrably erroneous”, he wrote in 2019, “we should not follow it.” Not even the late Antonin Scalia, his fellow originalist and hero, so presumed to overthrow settled law. “I’m an originalist and a textualist, not a nut,” Scalia once explained.

                  Originalist sin
                  Scholars have long admired the cogency of Justice Thomas’s legal philosophy. It is nonetheless hard to reconcile with the Supreme Court’s claim to be politically neutral or, given the outsize mediating role that politicians have foisted upon it, a healthy democracy. And yet the growing bullishness and impatience with precedent among the court’s dominant conservatives suggest Justice Thomas’s view, which was once an outlier, is becoming dominant. “One can be both an admirer of Thomas’s jurisprudence and deeply fearful of what it portends,” says Steve Vladeck, a legal scholar.

                  By contrast, it is hard to admire Mrs Thomas’s grievance-peddling in almost any way. Whatever laudable aims she once held, she encapsulates the many Republicans whose exaggerated fears of the left drove them to justify whatever new low Mr Trump had in store. And yet, unfortunately for Justice Thomas, an admirably self-made man, her activism and his judging are comparable.

                  In politics and the law, both Thomases are too intolerant of opposing views—even when they represent the settled opinion of most Americans and, in Justice Thomas’s case, legal tradition. This equivalence is the most troubling significance of Mrs Thomas’s political activities. They are not in conflict with her husband. But rather the opposite. ■

                  Read more from Lexington, our columnist on American politics:
                  Joe Biden’s indispensable leadership (Mar 12th)
                  The end of the Putin delusion (Mar 5th)
                  Deploying reality against Putin (Feb 26th)


                  For exclusive insight and reading recommendations from our correspondents in America, sign up to Checks and Balance, our weekly newsletter.

                  This article appeared in the United States section of the print edition under the headline "Courting trouble"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    In January, the Supreme Court rejected former President Donald Trump's bid to block the release of some presidential records to the House committee investigating the Capitol riot in a near unanimous 8-1 vote.

                    Only one justice dissented: Clarence Thomas.


                    https://www.yahoo.com/news/clarence-...005243657.html

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Roh View Post
                      In January, the Supreme Court rejected former President Donald Trump's bid to block the release of some presidential records to the House committee investigating the Capitol riot in a near unanimous 8-1 vote.

                      Only one justice dissented: Clarence Thomas.


                      https://www.yahoo.com/news/clarence-...005243657.html
                      Under threat of having to sleep on the couch for a month if he were to vote the other way.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post

                        Under threat of having to sleep on the couch for a month if he were to vote the other way.
                        In fairness, if I were married to her I think I would prefer to sleep on the couch. 🤷🏼‍♂️

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Mile High Salute View Post

                          In fairness, if I were married to her I think I would prefer to sleep on the couch. 🤷🏼‍♂️
                          Thanks for saying out loud what I was thinking. 😉 🤣

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Women's March pushes for impeachment of Justice Thomas over wife's texts

                            https://thehill.com/regulation/court...YreU9XSjCCxiqU

                            Comment


                            • #17
                              Such stupid commentary. Oh, and it's not racist because he's conservative.

                              But, it's from the NYT, so go figure.

                              Comment


                              • #20
                                Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                                Only one word required for you Labron.

                                Yale.

                                Boom! 😂

                                Ivy League Baby! Don't you feel silly now?
                                Not at all, Beaver.

                                Especially when I compare his CV to Judge Jackson’s.

                                But then, we were never talking about Thomas in the first place, were we?

                                We were talking about Judge Handmaiden.

                                Comment


                                • #21
                                  "The Court’s legitimacy was already under a cloud because of Trump’s and Mitch McConnell’s relentless packing of it. Starting with the blockade of Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016 and culminating in the rushed confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett just days before the 2020 election, Republicans have signaled that partisanship is at the heart of the court’s decision-making. (Not to forget the right-wing justices who cut off the Florida recount and handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush and the right-wing justices who effectively nullified the Voting Rights Act after Congress voted nearly unanimously to renew it.)"

                                  The pending death of the Supreme Court

                                  And what John Roberts must do to save it

                                  https://robertreich.substack.com/p/t...he-supreme?s=r

                                  Comment


                                  • #22
                                    Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post
                                    "The Court’s legitimacy was already under a cloud because of Trump’s and Mitch McConnell’s relentless packing of it. Starting with the blockade of Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016 and culminating in the rushed confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett just days before the 2020 election, Republicans have signaled that partisanship is at the heart of the court’s decision-making. (Not to forget the right-wing justices who cut off the Florida recount and handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush and the right-wing justices who effectively nullified the Voting Rights Act after Congress voted nearly unanimously to renew it.)"

                                    The pending death of the Supreme Court

                                    And what John Roberts must do to save it

                                    https://robertreich.substack.com/p/t...he-supreme?s=r
                                    Nothing is more indicative of the Radical Right's intention to end democracy in the US and replace it with one party authoritarian rule than Mitch's lifelong efforts to dominate the courts of the USA. At last, he has succeeded. The only task now is to eliminate free and fair elections, and the job will be done. The Senate was mathematically pre-designed to accommodate minority rule. Lobbyists can control what's left.

                                    Comment


                                    • #23
                                      In more than three decades on the Supreme Court, Thomas has consistently voted to make it harder for many Americans to have their vote count; to erode institutions, like a free press, that are essential to democracy; and to dismantle nearly a century’s worth of democratically enacted laws on spurious constitutional grounds. Thomas’s opposition to democracy is not rooted in nepotism. It appears to be quite principled.

                                      Among other things, Thomas is the only sitting justice who voted to install a Republican president in Bush v. Gore (2000) — although three other current justices were part of Republican George W. Bush’s legal team in that case. Thomas would allow Republican administrations to deactivate the entire Voting Rights Act so long as they are in power. He would strip journalists of First Amendment rights that allow them to safely provide critical coverage of government officials. And he would invalidate a long list of laws including the federal bans on child labor and on whites-only lunch counters, based on a widely rejected reading of the constitutional provision that grants Congress most of its power over the private sector.


                                      No matter how the scandal with his wife’s texts shakes out, it’s worth remembering how the Court’s longest-serving justice would shape the world. In Clarence Thomas’s America, elections would be skewed so heavily in the Republican Party’s favor that Democrats will struggle to ever gain power. And if Democrats somehow do manage to squeak into office, Thomas would ensure that they cannot govern.
                                      https://www.vox.com/2022/3/29/229997...lections-ginni

                                      Comment


                                      • #24
                                        In Clarence Thomas’s America, elections would be skewed so heavily in the Republican Party’s favor that Democrats will struggle to ever gain power. And if Democrats somehow do manage to squeak into office, Thomas would ensure that they cannot govern.

                                        Actually, that's the basic Republican plan. It's Mitch's life-long work - Create a one-party America.

                                        Comment


                                        • #25
                                          Even a stopped clock...


                                          Roberts joins liberals in criticizing ‘shadow docket’ pollution ruling

                                          Click image for larger version

Name:	JABF7LUZ3EI6ZGMHTXHO4YVD6Y.jpg&w=916.jpg
Views:	68
Size:	85.3 KB
ID:	75780


                                          In a first, chief justice agrees conservatives’ ruling marked an abuse of the court’s emergency powers

                                          Conservatives on the Supreme Court Wednesday reinstated for now a Trump-era environmental rule that limited the ability of states to block projects that could pollute rivers and streams, a decision more notable because Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined liberals in calling it an abuse of the court’s emergency powers.

                                          https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...ean-water-act/

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X