Bombshell emails raise new questions about Ginni Thomas contacts with John Eastman: WaPo reporter

Travis Gettys
November 03, 2022



MSNBC


Another batch of emails obtained from John Eastman shows Donald Trump's lawyers were counting on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to help them disrupt Joe Biden's election win, and their certainty raises new questions about his wife's role in the scheme.

Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro wrote Dec. 31, 2020, that Thomas would be "our only chance to get a favorable judicial opinion by Jan. 6" on a challenge to election results in Georgia, whose circuit court he oversees, and Washington Post reporter Jacqueline Alemany wondered on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" why he and Eastman felt so confident about the justice's willingness to assist.

"The fringy lawyers that were surrounding Trump and helping him in his efforts to overturn the results of the election in the last few months of his presidency had reason to believe, at least publicly, that justice Clarence Thomas was going to be sympathetic to their cause. Remember in December of 2020, Thomas along with [Justice Samuel] Alito issued a brief statement after the audacious Texas lawsuit was filed, calling to ultimately throw out the results of the 2020 election in four battleground states. The majority dismissed it, but Alito and Thomas expressed a statement that was sympathetic to the lawsuit, and said that the majority threw it out too quickly."

"Now the question is, I think, privately, what reasons did John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro have to believe that Thomas would be sympathetic to them if he got a lawsuit in front of them?" she added.

READ MORE: Pro-secession GOP candidate warned of 'legal consequences' over apparent plot to create chaos at polls

Ginni Thomas was corresponding with Eastman during that same period, along with White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Republican legislatures in key states won by Biden, and Alemany said the newly revealed emails place her under additional scrutiny.

"It's a very small world here," Alemany said. "There was no indication in the correspondence that either of the Thomases were [copied] on the e-mails, but you can clearly see why John Eastman was fighting hard to prevent the release of these e-mails."

Host Joe Scarborough said the revelations were scandalous.

"It's shocking, the behavior between John Eastman, Ginni Thomas, and the efforts to overthrow, throw out democratic election for the presidency," Scarborough said. "Also, their misreading of what Clarence Thomas and Alito did when they went along with an opinion in a Pennsylvania case, the only time the court wrote anything of substance on the election challenges, they said about the Pennsylvania case, which involved the court in Pennsylvania overruling the state legislature. That race is a constitutional question, and I think they rightly said, this race has questions we probably should address now, but even if we did address them now, it wouldn't change the outcome of the election, so there you have even the two most conservative justices saying even if we take this question up, which we think we should, there aren't going to be enough votes to change the fact that Joe Biden's the next president of the United States."

Watch the video below or at this link.

https://www.rawstory.com/ginni-thomas-john-eastman-2658591959/

 

Still no word on the great investigation into the leak of the Dobbs decision. Gee I wonder what is taking them so long? Could it be Roberts and the religious zealots on the court didn't like the answer? Why all the secrecy and silence?

But in the meantime this is one of the most direct and blatant conflicts of interest I have ever seen. And if Thomas was just a federal judge he would be forced to recuse himself from all these cases according to the ethics rule for the federal bench. But obviously our corrupt Supreme court has no rules let alone ethics.



Clarence Thomas Again Moves To Block Jan. 6 Inquiry That Could Implicate His Wife
Paul Blumenthal
Mon, November 14, 2022 at 12:17 PM




In an unwritten dissent on Monday, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas showed that he would have blocked enforcement of a subpoena issued by the House Jan. 6 Committee for the phone and text records of Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward.

The committee is seeking Ward’s records related to her role in former President Donald Trump’s effort to steal the 2020 election as a fake elector casting ballots in the Electoral College for Trump.

This is the second time Thomas has indicated that he would intervene to hamper the committee’s efforts to investigate the plot to overturn the 2020 election in which his wife, Ginni Thomas, played a role

Thomas previously was the lone justice to dissent from the court’s refusal to block the release of White House records held by the National Archives to the Jan. 6 Committee. It was later revealed in March that his wife had been in communication with White House officials about Trump’s machinations to overturn President Joe Biden’s victory.

Text messages between Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Ginni Thomas revealed the justice’s wife to be enraptured by baseless conspiracy theories about election fraud and involved in plotting with the White House to overturn Trump’s loss.

Email messages from Thomas to state lawmakers, including those in Arizona, revealed her efforts to pressure Republican state legislatures to reject Biden electors and appoint fake electors in support of Trump. These fake GOP elector slates, which included Ward, could then be submitted to Congress as part of Trump’s plan to get then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject Biden’s electors and declare Trump the victor.

Ward had asked the high court to block lower court decisions ordering her to comply with the committee’s subpoena. She declared the case “one of the most important First Amendment cases in history” and said forcing her to comply could put a “chill on public participation in partisan politics.”

But the court rejected her appeal, clearing the way for the House panel to get Ward’s phone records. Justice Samuel Alito joined Thomas in dissenting on the denial of Ward’s request.

While Thomas has refused to recuse himself from cases involving his wife’s political activities, he did previously recuse himself from cases involving his son.

Ginni Thomas testified privately before the Jan. 6 Committee in September. She reportedly told the panel that she still believes the lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.

Justice Thomas first ruled in favor of blocking the disclosure of Trump White House documents prior to his wife’s text messages with Meadows being publicly disclosed. Since then, congressional Democrats have called on him to recuse himself, resign or be impeached for inserting himself into cases that appear to be in defense of his wife’s political activities.

Others have noted that Thomas’ continued participation in Jan. 6 cases highlighted the need to require the court to abide by a binding ethics code.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/clarence-thomas-again-moves-block-191711144.html

 

Those who are non-treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans have been watching this case very closely while treasonous conservative/America Hazing/Republicans have been hoping no one is watching while they try to end democracy in the United States of America once and for all.

This is nothing more than treasonous conservative/America Hating/Republicans going to the Supreme Court saying that state legislatures have complete power over the courts, over their own state constitutions, and over the will of the voters to choose who wins elections no matter who got the most votes.

And we are much relieved to see so far its not going well although who knows what the religious zealots on the court might rule because after all they don't like democracy themselves because it impedes their efforts to turn the US into a theocracy governed by Sharia Law for Christians enforced by local Ame3rican Taliban. so turning the states into fiefdoms is very attractive to them.

Also on a side note I have been watching Neal Katyal for years as a Supreme Court expert that was once solicitor general. And its great to see him in action again before the court to prove he is the real deal.

Neal Katyal throws Justice Clarence Thomas' own words back in his face during Supreme Court hearing

Sarah K. Burris
December 07, 2022



Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (Phot oof Thomas vie Shutterstock/REX)


Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal was the lawyer who appeared before the Supreme Court to argue in the Moore v. Harper case, and he not only came prepared, he came prepared to go after the justices with their own words.

As the counsel for Common Cause, Katyal walked through the ways in which the Supreme Court inserted itself into the state laws after previously saying that they were leaving laws up to the states to decide, which is yet another contradiction. That said, the courts claimed "states rights" for abortion but then blocked it for gun regulation.

The exchange between Katyal and Thomas began with the latter saying that he'd been wanting to ask the lawyer questions for 30 years, drawing laughter from the Court crowd.

Katyal fired back: "I've waited for this case for you because it goes to exactly how you interpret the constitution, with history." He went on to explain how the history of the courts shows just how wrong the Republican side is.

IN OTHER NEWS: Trump lawyers to argue for immunity as ex-president faces three Jan. 6 lawsuits: report

"You said this court normally doesn't second-guess state court's interpretation of their own Constitution," said Thomas. "Would you say that in the case of Baker v. Carr?"

"I don't think you declare it unconstitutional. Any number of things. To say they got their own Constitution wrong is just a matter of interpretation. That is -- " Katyal said as Thomas interrupted.

"It was purely an interpretation of their own Constitution," said Thomas.

"And violation of federal law," said Katyal

"Yeah. In the end, it was invalidating their interpretation of their redistricting principles," said Thomas.

"And Justice Thomas, it's the same point picking up on Justice Kavanaugh's questioning. Palm Beach, the court said that sovereignty was at its apex when talking about state constitutions and interpretations by state courts," said Katyal.

"Let me ask you this," Thomas stepped in again. "It may be a bit unfair. If the state legislature had been very, very generous to minority voters in their redistricting and the state supreme court said under their state constitution that this was -- it violated their own state Constitution of North Carolina, would you be making the same argument?"

"Yes," Katyal said.

"Justice Gorsuch said it seems as though it depends on -- though it depends on what ox is being gorged. You would be making the same argument?" Thomas asked again.

"This Court never second-guessed state interpretations of their own constitutions," Katyal explained, returning to his argument that the Court has never gone to war with the states like this before. "If it's a general clause and it benefits or hurts minority voters, Justice Sutton says that's the process the states deal with. There is a special safeguard here which is the second half of the elections clause which allows Congress to supplant whatever that errant state decision is."

"What is the source of the authority for the state of North Carolina's Supreme Court to be involved in a federal election?" Thomas asked. "I understand there's no disagreement about a state legislature, but this is a federal election and it's similar to the problem we had with the presidential election in Bush v. Gore."

Bush v. Gore had a provision in it that said it would only apply to that case and should never be used as case law.

"It's just like Smiley, your honor. It's the exact same thing. It's a federal issue. The North Carolina court is interpreting the elections clauses and powers and the question is whether or not they have misread it or not and so I think that's the source of the substantive -- alleged substantive violation here. The spirit of your question, for 233 years, this court's never gotten involved and said, hey, we're going to, you know, say the North Carolina court got it wrong or their provision was too abstract for enforcement or anything like that. Rather, this court has always stayed on the sidelines, let the state process unfold subject to that other part of the trident check, Congress, in the second half of the elections cause."

Meanwhile the debate didn't fare well with the opposing counsel, who faced off against Justice Sonia Sotomayor. At one point she told him, "It seems that every answer you give is to get you what you want, but it makes little sense."

Listen to the argument below or at this link.

https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-katyal/

 

Gee whatever happened to that big investigation into the Roe v Wade leak? Maybe they should let Congress investigate it instead. After all they seem to be making progress on the old leak.

'Stealth missionaries': Former anti-abortion lobbyist gives bombshell testimony on Supreme Court campaign

Alex Henderson, AlterNet
December 09, 2022



Samuel Alito (Photo by Nicholkas Kamm for AFP)


The Rev. Rob Schenck was once deeply involved in the Christian right movement and white evangelical efforts to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. But the evangelical Protestant minister has grown increasingly critical of the Christian right and the anti-abortion movement that he was once a part of.

Moreover, he is speaking out against the Christian right’s campaign to lobby Supreme Court justices in the 2014 case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.

Schenck alleges that evangelical Christian fundamentalists knew what the High Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby would be before that decision was publicly announced, and that the leak came from either Justice Samuel Alito or his wife — an allegation that Justice Alito has vehemently denied. And Schenck discussed that allegation when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, December 8.

The Independent’s Alex Woodward, reporting on Schenck’s testimony, explains, “An evangelical minister and former longtime anti-abortion activist told members of Congress that he helped recruit wealthy conservative donors to serve as ‘stealth missionaries’ at the U.S. Supreme Court, where they developed friendships with conservative justices that aligned with the group’s ‘social and religious’ views. The ‘overarching’ goal of Robert Schenck’s ‘Operation Higher Court’ sought to ‘gain insight into the conservative justices’ thinking and to shore up their resolve to render solid, unapologetic opinions,’ he told the House Judiciary Committee in sworn testimony on 8 December.”

Operation Higher Court was the lobbying campaign of Faith and Action, the Christian right group that Schenck was a part of for many years.

Woodward notes that Schenck “testified to the Committee that his group suggested tactics like meeting with justices for meals at their homes and at private clubs to build relationships and advance their perceived common objectives.”

Schenck told House Judiciary Committee members, “I believe we pushed the boundaries of Christian ethics and compromised the High Court’s promise to administer equal justice. I humbly apologize to all I failed in this regard. Most of all, I beg the pardon of the folks I enlisted to do work that was not always transparently honest.… I’m here today in the interest of truth telling.”

The December 8 hearing wasn’t strictly about Burwell v. Hobby Lobby or Operation Higher Court’s campaign to influence Supreme Court justices. It was about Supreme Court ethics in general, and Schenck now believes that it was unethical for Supreme Court justices to be interacting with Christian right lobbyists.




https://www.rawstory.com/stealth-mi...ombshell-testimony-on-supreme-court-campaign/

 

Why yes.
It appears that the Nancy Antoinette star chamber bunch will shortly be available.

And the good news is we won't have to guess at what their findings might be or have to plow through MILLIONS of documents to decide for ourselves what happened.

The result will be preordained, eh?

 

The religious zealots on the Supreme Court don't even attempt to hide not only their bias but there agenda of marching the US from democracy to technocracy governed by Sharia Law For Christians enforced by the American Taliban.


Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh went to CPAC boss Matt Schlapp's holiday party, which Trump ally Stephen Miller and Rep. Matt Gaetz also attended: report

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh went to CPAC boss Matt Schlapp's holiday party, which Trump ally Stephen Miller and Rep. Matt Gaetz also attended: report
Rebecca Cohen,Oma Seddiq
Tue, December 13, 2022 at 8:03 AM

• 
  Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh went to a holiday party at the home of Matt Schlapp Friday night.
  
  
• Schlapp is the chairman of the influential right-wing group Conservative Political Action Coalition.
  
  
• Other attendees at the party included Stephen Miller, Rep. Matt Gaetz, and Sean Spicer.
  

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh went to a holiday party at the home of Matt Schlapp — the chairman of the influential right-wing group Conservative Political Action Coalition — Friday night, Politico first reported.

Among other attendees at the Christmas party included Stephen Miller, a longtime ally to former President Donald Trump, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Trump's former White House press secretary Sean Spicer, and Rep.-elect George Santos of New York, Politico reported.

The appearance has sparked questions about possible conflicts of interest with a sitting Supreme Court justice attending a private party of right-wing leaders. Miller's conservative group, America First Legal, has filed briefs on cases that are pending before the Supreme Court, according to Bloomberg.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

The news also comes as the Supreme Court has come under renewed scrutiny over ethics concerns after The New York Times reported of a potential breach of an opinion in 2014.

Christian evangelical minister Rev. Robert Schenck told The Times and testified before the House Judiciary Committee last week that he gained advance knowledge of the decision in the high-profile Supreme Court case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. The 5-4 majority, in an opinion delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, ruled that paying for insurance that covered contraception violated the religious freedoms of privately held, for-profit companies.

Schenck, a former anti-abortion activist, told congressional lawmakers that he had been involved in a decades-long effort to try and influence the thinking of some of the conservative Supreme Court justices.

Democratic lawmakers have introduced legislation to establish an enforceable code of conduct for the Supreme Court justices. Unlike lower federal judges, the justices are not bound by any code of conduct.

The Supreme Court's public information office did not immediately return Insider's request for comment.

Read the original article on Business Insider



https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-justice-brett-kavanaugh-150331909.html

 

So what....

 

They twirl when a Supreme Court judge attends a Holiday party but give not a butterfly fart when the FBI apparently uses it's authority and influence to censor political speech.

We aren't going to survive, are we?

 

We'll survive, it's going to require disengaging and a few rounds but we'll be OK in the long run....

 

The majority of the court are religious zealots that no linger believe in up holding and defending the Constitution and instead just blatantly try to establish Sharia Law For Christians and push the conservative agenda. And if the majority of Americans lose faith in the Supreme Court that is a very real problem. Because it is another agreement embedded in the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the final check to determine what is Constitutional and what is not. And if Americans do not have confidence that is what the Court is doing then we no longer have a Constitutional Republic.

And in addition what kind of confidence can the American people have in a court that not only can't find where their leak came from they also refuse to investigate otter leaks. That's not a competent court. That's an incompetent bunch of political hacks.



The problem is too many Americans no longer trust the Supreme Court. The solution is clear

• 
  1/2
  The problem is too many Americans no longer trust the Supreme Court. The solution is clear
  
  J. Scott Applewhite/AP
• 
  2/2
  The problem is too many Americans no longer trust the Supreme Court. The solution is clear
  

Erwin Chemerinsky
Fri, December 23, 2022 at 8:00 AM MST


The U.S. Supreme Court faces a serious legitimacy crisis.

A Gallup Poll last year reported that the high court had received its lowest approval ratings in history, with only 40% of respondents approving of its performance and 53% disapproving. According to a Marquette University poll conducted in July, 38% approved of the court and 61% disapproved.

This year has seen some of the justices, including Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan, publicly sniping at each other about whether the court’s legitimacy is in jeopardy.

The crisis of trust is due partly to recent decisions ending abortion rights and aggressively expanding gun rights. But the political manipulation of theSupreme Court appointment process has also taken a toll.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

During his 2020 presidential campaign, Joe Biden was asked about national distrust of the Supreme Court. His answer was the one leaders often give when they want to duck an issue: He said he would create a committee to study the matter.

Opinion

Once elected, Biden did exactly this, creating a 34-person committee. Being so large and ideologically diverse, the committee was unlikely to agree on any major recommendations. The resulting report, released a year ago, received little media attention.

But the issue of the court’s legitimacy, as well as the need for action to address it, is more urgent than ever. There are many reforms to consider, but one seems particularly important: term limits for the justices.

I have been arguing against the justices’ current lifetime terms for many years. I believe they should serve 18-year, nonrenewable terms.

The United States is the only democracy that gives members of its highest court life tenure. In fact, few states provide such a guarantee to their justices and judges.

Life expectancy is much longer now than it was in 1787, when the Constitution was written. From 1787 through 1970, Supreme Court justices served an average of 15 years; justices appointed since 1970 have served an average of 27 years.

Clarence Thomas was 43 years old when he was confirmed, in 1991. If he remains on the court until he is 90, the age at which Justice John Paul Stevens retired, he will have been a justice for 47 years. This is too much power in one person’s hands for too long.

Also, too much now depends on accidents of history, namely when court vacancies happen to occur. President Richard Nixon appointed four justices in his first two years in office; President Jimmy Carter picked no justices in his four years. President Donald Trump picked three justices in four years, while the previous three Democratic presidents served a combined 20 years in the White House but selected only four.

Staggered, 18-year, non-renewable terms would mean that each president would make at least one nomination every two years.

My sense is that there is bipartisan support for this reform, which would require a constitutional amendment. Rick Perry, the Republican former Texas governor, argued for it when he ran for president in 2016. Liberals support it as well.

Term limits should be applied to current justices. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be implemented for decades. Amy Coney Barrett was 48 years old when she was confirmed, in 2020. If she remains on the court until she is 87, the age Ruth Bader Ginsburg was when she died, she will be a justice until 2059.

The question is whether any constituency cares enough about this issue to do the hard work of getting the Constitution amended. That would mean lobbying Congress to propose the amendment and then mounting a campaign for its adoption by state legislatures.

It’s an essential reform, however, and one that may have the national support to be adopted.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/problem-too-many-americans-no-150000635.html

 

The latest national debate, as orchestrated by butt hurt despicables.
They don't like the decisions the court is handing out just now, so they start demonizing and attacking and twirling.
And demanding that we just toss the whole bunch out into the curb and start over.
You know, for the good of the country.

Just another "shithole country", eh stumbler?
Your lack of faith in our constitution, in our government structure tells volumes about just how patriotic you are.
All hail the despicables, and fuck the constitution, eh stumbler?

 

The American public no longer believes the Supreme Court is impartial

Daniel de Visé
Wed, January 11, 2023 at 4:00 AM MST


Never in recent history, perhaps, have so many Americans viewed the Supreme Court as fundamentally partisan.

Public approval of the nine-justice panel stands near historic lows. Declining faith in the institution seems rooted in a growing concern that the high court is deciding cases on politics, rather than law. In one recent poll, a majority of Americans opined that Supreme Court justices let partisan views influence major rulings.

Three quarters of Republicans approve of the high court’s recent job performance. But Democrats’ support has plummeted to 13 percent, and more than half the nation overall disapproves of how the court is doing its job.

Public support for the high court sank swiftly last summer in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a landmark ruling that revoked a constitutional right to abortion. The decision delighted many conservatives but defied a large majority of Americans who believe abortion should be legal.

- ADVERTISEMENT -

Yet, partisan anger runs deeper than Dobbs. Liberals are fuming about a confluence of lucky timing and political maneuvering that enabled a Republican-controlled Senate to approve three conservative justices in four years, knocking the panel out of synch with the American public.

Judged by last year’s opinions, the current court is the most conservative in nearly a century, at a time when a majority of Americans are voting Democratic in most elections. Democrats say the court no longer mirrors society, a disconnect that spans politics and religion. All six of the court’s conservatives were raised Catholic, a faith that claims roughly one-fifth of the U.S. population.

Republicans counter that the high court’s job is to serve the Constitution, not to please the public.

“The Left was used to, for the most part, getting its way with the court,” said John Malcolm, a senior legal fellow at conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation. “Now that the Left is not getting its way with the court, they’re trying to tear it down and delegitimize it.”

Legal scholars may not care much about the high court’s popularity, but they care deeply about its legitimacy.

And what is legitimacy? James L. Gibson, a political scientist at Washington University in St. Louis, defines it as “loyalty to the institution. It is willingness to support the institution even when it’s doing things with which you disagree.”

Americans remained steadfastly loyal to the high court for decades, Gibson said, embracing it even after the powder-keg Bush v. Gore decision of 2000, which decided an election.

But then, with Dobbs, the high court suffered “the largest decline in legitimacy that’s ever been registered, through dozens and dozens of surveys using the same indicators,” Gibson said. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

One Gallup poll, taken after someone leaked a draft of the Dobbs ruling, found that only 25 percent of the American public had confidence in the court, the lowest figure recorded in a half century of polling.

Around the same time, journalists revealed that Ginni Thomas, wife of high court Justice Clarence Thomas, had pressed state lawmakers to help overturn former President Trump’s 2020 defeat at the polls.

“The idea that you have the spouse of a Supreme Court justice advocating for overthrowing the government — sui generis, I think,” said Caroline Fredrickson, a visiting law professor at Georgetown University, invoking the Latin term for “unique.”

With the high court’s legitimacy eroding, Gibson said, the panel faces “greater institutional vulnerability to congressional manipulation.”

An unsympathetic legislature could add seats to the court, “packing” it to dilute the influence of the conservative majority. Congress could impose term limits on justices who now serve for life. Lawmakers could narrow the court’s jurisdiction, limiting its authority to hear contentious cases.

“Practically nothing about the court is free from congressional manipulation,” Gibson said. “And, man, John Roberts is aware of this.”

The chief justice has emerged as a voice of moderation on the right-leaning panel. One Gallup poll, taken in December 2021, found that 60 percent of Americans approved of how Roberts was handling his job. Roberts outpolled other A-list leaders, including the president, vice president and leaders of the House and Senate.

“He’s the justice who twice saved Obamacare,” Malcolm said. Roberts joined the court’s liberals in rejecting legal challenges to health care reform by a popular president.

“He’s the justice who said, ‘I would not have overturned Roe v. Wade,’” Malcolm said. While he joined his conservative colleagues in the majority on Dobbs, Roberts wrote in a concurring opinion that he would have preferred not to reverse the 1973 abortion decision, but instead to rule more narrowly on the case at hand.

Roberts, chief justice since 2005, has defended the court’s legitimacy in public remarks since Dobbs. Legal scholars say he is keenly aware that his court is drifting away from the mainstream of public opinion.

“I think Chief Justice Roberts cares a lot about the optics,” Fredrickson said.

In its first term with a six-person conservative bloc, the high court overturned Roe, posited a Second Amendment right to carry guns in public and restricted the government’s role in combating climate change, among other rulings.

According to a scholarly database, the Dobbs court delivered its most conservative term since 1931.

In previous decades, by contrast, “the U.S. Supreme Court has rarely been out of step with the preferences of its constituents, the people,” Gibson said. “Throughout history, the court has ratified the views of the majority, not opposed them.”

If the current court has a historical precedent, it is the Warren court of the 1950s and 1960s. The panel led by Chief Justice Earl Warren inspired mass protests with decisions that expanded civil rights and outlawed segregation in public schools.

“You ended up having ‘Impeach Earl Warren’ signs throughout the Southeast during this time,” Malcolm said.

But even the Warren court didn’t cleave the nation by political party.

“While the divisions over the Warren court may have been just as deep or deeper, they didn’t break down deeply along party lines,” said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University. “There used to be liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats.”

Over the decades, the transfer of presidential power between parties has guaranteed a steady stream of liberal and conservative appointees to maintain political balance on the court. Former Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama each appointed two Supreme Court justices in a two-term, eight-year presidency.

And then came President Trump, who collaborated with a Republican Senate to deliver three justices in a single term.

Trump’s first appointment, Neil Gorsuch, plugged a vacancy Obama had attempted to fill with Merrick Garland, now the attorney general. The Republican Senate majority blocked Garland, stalling until the 2016 election in hope that a Republican candidate would prevail. Democrats howled.

Trump’s second pick, Brett Kavanaugh, followed a more orderly process but seeded even more controversy when a congressional witness, Christine Blasey Ford, accused the nominee of sexual assault.

Trump’s third appointment, Amy Coney Barrett, arrived on the eve of the 2020 election. This time, the Republican majority chose not to await the results. Again, Democrats howled.

Barrett replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon who had clung to her seat through two bouts of cancer before dying in office at 87. Liberal strategists had urged her to resign during the Obama presidency. Some progressives fault her still for not stepping down.

In the months to come, President Biden and congressional Democrats could restore the court’s ideological balance by packing it with liberals, or hobble it by narrowing its jurisdiction. But they probably won’t, legal observers say, because the Republicans could one day weaponize the same tools against the Democrats.

Far more possible, in the long term, is a bipartisan consensus to impose term limits on the court. With medical advances extending human life, high-court justices now routinely serve for 30 years. Lifetime appointment “gives them a bizarrely monarchical sort of power,” Fredrickson said.

A 2021 bill proposed 18-year terms, with the president allowed to nominate a new justice every other year.

Two-thirds of the public support term limits. But Republicans have little incentive to back legislation that, from their perspective, solves a nonexistent problem.

“There’s a good chance that, sooner or later, we will get term limits for the Supreme Court,” Somin said. “But later is more likely than sooner.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/american-public-no-longer-believes-110000335.html

 

Another example of despicable propaganda at work.

 

The courts are not supposed to have constituents, nor should they be making decisions based on what happens to be in vogue at the time.
The role of the courts is to determine whether or not a law passed by the Senate and Congress, and signed by the President, meets Constitutional muster or not.
Roe-V-Wade was a perfect example of a Rogue Supreme Court doing what feels good instead of whats protected under the Constitution....

 

The thing is, as long as the Supreme Court was in step with despicable wishes, we never heard much about 'Fixing" the problems with the court.
Now they don't like the court so they want to "fix it".
To screw up something that is working just fine takes government.
To truly fuck it up takes a government run by despicables.

But roughly half of Americans opposed Roe V Wade. The polls have always shown that this is an issue that pretty much evenly divides America.
When Roe V Wade was decided that was, apparently in step with the preferences of its constituents.
Now that the court has pushed the issue back to the states, the court is out of step with constituents.

And there you have classic despicable propaganda.
Fuck em.

 

Only eight months but any day now just any day.

SCOTUS investigators have narrowed ID of Dobbs leaker down to 'small number of suspects': WSJ

Brad Reed
January 13, 2023



US Supreme Court (supreme.justia.com)


The Wall Street Journal is reporting that investigators in the United States Supreme Court have narrowed down the identity of the person who leaked its landmark decision last year to overturn the decades-long precedent set by Roe v. Wade.

According to WSJ's sources, investigators have whittled their list of culprits down to a "small number of suspects" that include some clerks who work for some of the Supreme Court justices.

However, the investigators still have yet to definitively pin down the identity of the leaker.

"Each justice is allotted four law clerks, but dozens of other court employees might also have had access to the draft opinion," notes WSJ. "At times, hints of the court’s internal dynamics have emerged before decisions were published, but the leak of a complete draft opinion was unprecedented and, several justices have said, devastating to relations within the court."

READ MORE: Anti-Santos demonstrators vow to make his life a 'nightmare' and demand to see his birth certificate

When the decision to overturn Roe was finally published, it accomplished a primary goal of America's Christian Right movement in its quest to end abortion rights in the United States.

However, it also sparked a backlash that many observers say helped Democrats hold the Senate and stave off a "red wave" election in the House of Representatives.



https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-dobbs-leak/

 

What a fucking joke.

Supreme Court issues report on Dobbs leak probe -- and the leaker still has not been found

Brad Reed
January 19, 2023



US Supreme Court (supreme.justia.com)


After several months of work, the United States Supreme Court issued a report on its investigation into the leak of the draft Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

However, the investigators were still unable to definitively identify the person responsible for leaking the draft.

In a report released on Thursday, the Supreme Court said that the Marshal of the Supreme Court and her team "determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the '82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion.'"

The Marshal's team says that it will "continue to review and process some electronic data that has been collected and a few other inquiries remain pending," while adding that "to the extent that additional investigation yields new evidence or leads, the investigators will pursue them."

READ MORE: Rep. Nancy Mace grilled for hypocrisy: Why is debt not an issue 'under Republican presidents?'

The leak of the Dobbs decision last year set off a firestorm within the Supreme Court, which described the leak as an enormous breach of trust.

When the decision to overturn Roe was finally published, it accomplished a primary goal of America's Christian Right movement in its quest to end abortion rights in the United States.

However, it also sparked a backlash that many observers say helped Democrats hold the Senate and stave off a "red wave" election in the House of Representatives.

Read the full report at this link (PDF).



https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-dobbs-leak-2659282291/

 

Well, sorry, but the report is about the biggest bit of fluff Shooter has seen for awhile.
Wonder if we'll ever get access to the transcripts and other evidence.
Probably not.

 

Whomever it was, I'll bet it's feeling pretty full of themselves....
Some even think that at some point the it will reveal itself, but I think they're wrong....
The person that provided the leak has zero sense of honor, no understanding of justice, and is a Judas to the legal profession....
I hope it screws up and is found out so it can be stripped of a license to practice law, and given a nice lengthy prison term so it can think about how it betrayed a Nation....

 

I thought from the very beginning that Chief Justice Roberts was going to cover up for the religious zealots on the court.



Supreme Court probe was an investigation that never wanted an outcome: former FBI counter-intel official

Sarah K. Burris
January 19, 2023



Samuel Alito (Photo by Nicholkas Kamm for AFP)


Frank Figliuzzi, the former FBI deputy assistant director for counter-intelligence, is calling out the in-house investigation conducted by the U.S. Supreme Court to find the source of the leak of the Dobbs decision from last summer.

MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace recalled that Justice Samuel Alito sounded the alarm that there would be assassination threats as a result of the leak. The Court was reportedly up in arms over the idea that the decision leaked a month prior to the actual release. The findings from the internal investigation were unsuccessful.

"The investigation focused on Court personnel — temporary (law clerks) and permanent employees — who had or may have had access to the draft opinion during the period from the initial circulation until the publication by Politico," the findings say.

Legal experts believe this means that the justices were not questioned or investigated and no investigation was done with personal information.

IN OTHER NEWS: 'Arrest the reporter': Trump demands SCOTUS jail journalists until they cough up name of leaker'

Figliuzzi said that this is by design.

"When is an investigation really not an investigation? When you're told what you can and can't do," he said, implying that the probe was a joke. "You can't do what you need to do or talk to the people you need to talk to solve the investigation and whether it's conducted by professional investigators. Let's level set here. There have been some things said that I think we need to clarify. No. One, the U.S. Marshal Service did not conduct this investigation. This investigation was conducted by someone called the Marshal of the Supreme Court. I'm sure she's a wonderful person, but she has no law enforcement training or experience. She's in charge of securing the building called the Supreme Court building and the justices. that's what she does. That's who they gave this to in this most egregious breach of security in the history of the Supreme Court."

The counter-intelligence expert explained that to do a serious investigation, one begins with talking to every person who may have had access to the information leaked. That didn't happen in this case.

"While they may have talked to 200 people, they didn't talk to X clerks, they didn't talk to the very universe of people who may have done the leaking and left the court to go onto some great legal job," he said. "They didn't talk to those people. They didn't call the FBI because you know what would happen, a real case would have happened. They would have actually had the criminal process. Someone stole government property. Someone mishandled government records, potentially a crime. They could have had subpoenas of former clerks and former employees, they would have had that leverage over them. They could have subpoenaed phone carriers and internet providers and they could have seen who was talking to whom and when at the media platform that obtained this information. All that could have been done."

He also noted that there's no evidence the justices themselves were interviewed. Another point is that the Marshal of the Court's boss is the Supreme Court. So, her findings could have implicated the people that pay her salary.

Wallace asked why then a sham prob would have been done to find a leak that they claimed they were taking seriously.

"Well, since we're not in the conjecture business, let's answer it generically. Why would you curtail an investigation?" Figliuzzi asked. "What I've read about this investigation is that within its parameters, and they were significant parameters I just described, it was a heck of an investigation, they tried to look at printers and forensics and IR and they conducted a hundred interviews. It's not a sham, but rather an extremely curtailed investigation that really wouldn't get to the truth. But why would you curtail and put those handcuffs on somebody investigating what happened? Because you don't really want to get to the outcome. That's why."

The press and legal analysts have discussed the ethics problems happening at the court over the course of the last few years and one of the things Figliuzzi suggested is that Chief Justice John Roberts could actually write some ethics rules for his court. Each chief does it and he has been overseeing the bench for nearly 20 years without any ethics requirements. What rules are in place are self-policed, meaning they're effectively ignored.

"You want to talk about public perceptions, draft an ethics code, that would go a long way," Figliuzzi recommended. "He's the one who decided this case would be handled by the chief of police, right? That's her job. I'm not making that phrase up or demeaning her role in any single way, the security at the Supreme Court is fantastic. But in writing, her job is chief of police. That's the marshal of the supreme court. and she literally answers to the court. They decide if she has a job tomorrow or not."

He explained that the FBI did offer to do an investigation but was rebuffed.

"So, they seem unwilling to do it," he concluded.

When Wallace compared it to corporate espionage and corporate theft, Figliuzzi said that sometimes someone doesn't want to get the answer because it would kill their stock or hurt the company. That's why quiet internal investigations happen instead of serious, professional ones.

"You're going to put band-aids over the holes and hope this goes away. If you want to use that analogy to the Supreme Court, maybe they really don't want the public to know the answer because the public perception is already at a low," he said, also adding that he suspects they know who it was already.

See the commentary on the ordeal below or at the link here.



https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-never-wanted-investigation/