The United States Supreme Court is a Illegitimate Kangaroo Court because 5 of the Justices, were appointed by Presidents NOT supported or elected to office by the majority of Americans.  These partisan ideologues “Justices” were selected solely because they were expected to rule against key issues such as “Roe Venus Wade” which Republicans wanted stricken down.

 

This Incompetent & Illegitimate Supreme Court has in recent years made horrible decisions such as “Bush Versus Gore” stopping the vote count & handing the 2000 election to Bush on a silver platter, “Citizens United”, striking down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, “Roe Venus Wade” overturning the right for women to have an abortion and failing to strike down the Texas “Heartbeat” Law which bans abortions in Texas and turns Anti-Abortion Zealots into Bounty Hunters.

Two (2) “Justices” were installed by George W. Bush who LOST the 2000 election by 543,895 votes and Three (3) “Justices” were installed by Donald Trump who LOST by 2.8 Million votes.

 

Trump’s 1st Supreme Court Nominee, Neil Gorsuch is a illegitimate “Justice” who obtained his seat by theft from Obama’s Nominee, Merrick Garland

 

Advise & Consent Clause of the Constitution Violated by Mitch McConnell & Republicans

Obama was President when Antonin Scalia died. Obama chose Merrick Garland as Scalia’s replacement but Republicans violated their constitutional duty by refusing to provide “Advise & Consent” and held Scalia’s seat open for almost a year, blocking President Obama’s nominee (Merrick Garland). This was an outrageous and despicable power grab by Mitch McConnell & Republicans.

When Trump became President, he appointed Neil Gorsuch, who obtained his seat by theft, due to Republicans blocking Obama’s nominee, so Gorsuch is without question, an illegitimate “Justice”. Gorsuch seat rightly belongs to Merrick Garland.

Ex-Federal Prosecutor Glenn Kushner explains how when Mitch McConnell & Republicans refused to provide Advise & Consent to President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Obama should have told Merrick Garland to take his seat in the Supreme Court.

Since Mitch McConnell & Republicans refused to provide Advise & Consent, any legal challenges would have likely failed, so the Supreme Court today would be 5 to 4 Radical Right Wingers instead of 6 – 3.

 

Republicans have hijacked the highest court in the land. First, they stole a Supreme Court seat from President Obama. Then, they changed a 70-year old rule to install two of Donald Trump’s far-right justices and confirmed Brett Kavanaugh despite credible allegations that he committed sexual assault and lied under oath.

Now, the politicized Supreme Court is enacting a far-right, partisan agenda that favors corporate interests and Republican Party special interests. Reproductive freedom, civil rights, environmental justice, common sense gun safety laws, and our right to vote are all at risk. And the Court has eroded confidence in our system of government with ethical lapses and lack of transparency.

 

‘Politicians in Robes’: How the right-wing Supreme Court is mounting a power grab

 

 

Supreme Court Justices should be appointed by Presidents who were elected to office by the majority of Americans so their viewpoints reflects the majority. That has NOT been the case due to the Electoral College, which made Republicans Bush & Trump President (who received less votes than their opponent)… and the Senate, which doesn’t represent the majority.

 

Republican Appointed Right Wing Judges Lied Under Oath to get their Seats and should be IMPEACHED / REMOVED

 

Republican Appointed “Justices” LIED

Lawrence O’Donnell details the years of lying and hypocrisy from Republicans and Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices on abortion rights.

 

Republican Supreme Court nominees learned not to tell the truth about their Roe v. Wade opinions after Reagan nominee Robert Bork told the truth and lost his confirmation hearing vote 42-58 in 1987

 

Republican Appointed “Justices” Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh should removed for Lying Under Oath about Roe V. Wade. Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh should be removed from office for lying under oath about sexual abuse of women.

They’ve proven to be political activists determined to force their Anti-Abortion beliefs down American’s Throats.

 

A new poll from NPR shows the majority of people disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

 

Only 40% Approve of the United States Supreme Court (lowest in recorded history)

 

Clarence Thomas Violated The Law In Plain Sight

MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell analyzes a new Supreme Court order from Justice Clarence Thomas that temporarily blocks Senator Lindsey Graham from having to testify in the Fulton County grand jury investigation into the 2020 election, despite an apparent conflict of interest given his wife’s efforts to overturn President Biden’s victory. Oct 24, 2022

 

DARK MONEY CONTROL OVER SUPREME COURT

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gives outstanding presentation how Big Business “Dark Money” has been playing a role in the Supreme Court nomination process.

 

Sen. Whitehouse: We Have A ‘Rotten Ethics Mess’ At Supreme Court

In the wake of a leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell speaks to Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse who says ethics rules are “optional” for the Supreme Court and weaker than other equivalent rules in the executive and legislative branches.

 

Right-Wing Dark Money Gets $1.6 Billion Donation From One Donor

 

Sen. Whitehouse Blasts Conservative SCOTUS Justices Rich Right-Wing’s Business

The New York Times reports that a former anti-abortion leader questions if Justice Alito leaked the decision in a 2014 ruling and details right-wing lobbying efforts to influence conservative justices. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who has tracked dark money to the Supreme Court, joins MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell to discuss his reaction and the need for ethics reform.

 

Congress Demands Answers On Supreme Court Justice Access Scandal, Accountability Problem

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse talks with Alex Wagner about ideas for enforcing an ethical code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices after reports of conservative activists ingratiating themselves into a position of influence with the court’s justices.

 

The Illegitimate Republican Appointed Supreme Court voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, according to an initial draft opinion written by Samuel Alito obtained by POLITICO.

 

Samuel Alito’s Draft Opinion Quotes A Man Who Believed In Witches

With the Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell takes a look at the reasoning behind Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion and explains how it is the result of minority rule in America.

 

Supreme Court Faces Credibility Crisis As Anti-Abortion Justices Set To Fulfill Purpose

Rachel Maddow explains why the anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade would confirm what many people already think about the court being compromised by politics, and highlights the more liberal justices cautioning their colleagues who appear poised to fulfill the reason Republicans nominated them to the court.

 

The roots of America’s democracy problem

 

The Senate Is Rigged for Republicans

The Senate does not represent the Majority and is rigged for Republicans because Red States like Wyoming which has a small population get as much say a California or New York, with huge populations.

According to 2018 Census Bureau estimates, more than half of the US population lives in just nine states. That means that much of the nation is represented by only 18 senators. Less than half of the population controls about 82 percent of the Senate.

This UNEQUAL Representation is another reason why the United States Ranks 25th as a “Flawed Democracy”.

 

 

 

The Illegitimate, Rigged by Republican Supreme Court Upholds Republican laws designed to undermine & destroy the Voting Rights Act of 1965

 

Supreme Court Republicans Help Alabama GOP Keep Biased Map For Next Election

Janai Nelson, associate director-counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, talks about why the Supreme Court’s conservative majority was wrong not to recognize a federal court’s determination that Alabama’s new district map is improperly drawn without consideration for the increase in the state’s Black population.

 

‘Stunning’ SCOTUS Decision Regarding Texas Abortion Laws Creates ‘Citizen Bounty Hunters’

Lawrence O’Donnell talks to Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe about the Texas anti-abortion bill that the Supreme Court refused to block.

 

Chris Hayes On Why Texas Abortion Law Design Is Particularly Egregious

 

Justices Write SCATHING DISSENTS – Call Out Their Colleagues For Cowardice

Jesse talks about the draconian Anti-choice abortion law that went into effect last night in Texas. He reads the dissents of the two remaining reasonable women on the bench, Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor!

 

• The Majority voted for Al Gore in 2000 by over 500,000 votes yet George W. Bush was crammed down the American Majority’s Throats. The election was STOLEN by the Electoral College, PLUS Florida Republicans illegally purged thousands of minorities off voters rolls and vote counting was stopped by the Republican Majority Supreme Court. The installation of George W. Bush caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis due to the misguided and unjustified war with Iraq. Trillions was added to the National Debt due to George W. Bush’s incompetence.

• Bush appointed 2 Justices against the will of the MAJORITY = 2 Supreme Court Seats Stolen

 

• Republicans STOLE a 3rd Supreme Court Seat from the American Majority by blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court appointment stating “The people should decide” during an election year.

 

• The Majority voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 by over 2.84 Million votes yet Donald Trump was crammed down the American Majority’s Throats. The election was once again STOLEN by the Electoral College which made the LOSER the “winner”.

Did Russia Affect the 2016 Election? It’s Now Undeniable

In the wake of the Mueller indictment of a Russian troll farm, any attempt to claim that the 2016 election wasn’t affected by Russian meddling is laughable.

• Trump is a also Illegitimate President because it has been established that Russia hacked, interfered with and likely influenced the outcome of the 2016 Election.

• Trump filled Obama’s Supreme Court Seat, plus a 4th Supreme Court Seat against the Will of the Majority

• After Ruth Ginsburg died Republicans proved to be PARTISAN HYPOCRITES by committing to fill her seat weeks before the 2020 election with Conservative Supreme Court nominee Amy Barrett who is being appointed SOLELY because she’s expected to rule on issues like Roe V. Wade & “Affordable Healthcare” a certain way

• Appointing & confirming “Justices” because they are expected to rule on issues a particular way is not justice

• The Senate is RIGGED for Republicans and doesn’t represent the Majority

. Half of the US population lives in just nine states yet is only represented by 18 Senators. Democrats led Republicans by more than 12 million votes in Senate races in the 2018 election, yet suffered losses due to our UN-Democratic Rigged-for-Republicans Government

• The Supreme Court is now Rigged for Republicans and doesn’t represent the Majority. It’s become another tool to cram unpopular conservative ideologies down the Majority’s Throats.

 

 

Clarence Thomas is compromised and Unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice

 

 

 

Ginny Thomas (Clarence Thomas’ Wife) Pressured WH to Overturn 2020 Election

Jesse talks about the latest reporting surrounding the efforts of Virginia ‘Ginny’ Thomas (Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ wife) to pressure the White House through Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to not concede and to effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election. She sent DOZENS of text messages containing strategy, conspiracy, encouragement, and general unhinged ideas to Mark Meadows following the November election and January 6th insurrection at the United States Capitol.

 

 

 

 

 

Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has stirred debate with her far-right rhetoric.

 

Law professor says Clarence Thomas’ vote in Trump case should set off alarm bells

Critics are calling for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself in an upcoming case due to his wife’s political activism.

 

Sen. Whitehouse: Supreme Court Must Investigate Justice Thomas’s Jan. 6 Votes

Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse is calling on Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts to investigate after The Washington Post reported that Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife was in contact with Trump attorney John Eastman, who was pushing the plan for VP Mike Pence to fail to certify the 2020 election results.

 

Elie Mystal: Justice Thomas Is Lone Dissenter On Issues That May Implicate His Wife In Jan. 6

With the Supreme Court’s approval rating at a new low, Justice Clarence Thomas last fall defended the court against the growing criticism that it has become too politicized. Meanwhile, Thomas is married to someone who is extremely politically active on the far right–Virginia ‘Ginni’ Thomas, an American attorney and conservative activist.

 

Justice Thomas Ignores Basic Ethics Where Wife’s Activism, Lobbying Conflict With Cases

Jane Mayer, chief Washington correspondent for the New Yorker, talks about her new reporting on the activism and paid affiliations and lobbying of Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, that Justice Thomas does not acknowledge conflict with cases before the Supreme Court from which he should recuse himself.

 

The ‘Far-Right Activism’ Of The Wife Of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

Washington Correspondent for the New Yorker Jane Mayer discusses her new reporting that asks whether Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, poses a threat to the Supreme Court

 

Supreme Court rejects Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ from grand jury subpoena for tax returns

The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s claim of “absolute immunity” from a New York grand jury subpoena for his financial records.

A 7 to 2 Supreme Court decision rejected Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ from grand jury subpoena for tax returns.

And who felt Trump should be treated like a Dictator and have ‘absolute immunity’?

REPUBLICANS APPOINTED “Justices” Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.!

 

 

Justice Clarence Thomas’ head-scratching, jaw-dropping dissents

Just because Justice Clarence Thomas has a reputation for staying silent on the bench, doesn’t mean the polarizing conservative didn’t apply his own brand of knotty logic in his written dissent of the court’s rulings.

Here are two head-scratching, jaw-dropping examples of Thomas’ recent logical gymnastics at work.

Discrimination exists, we just have to live with it

In the case dealing with the Fair Housing Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the law constitutionally protects against actions that lead to discriminatory results — known as disparate impact — in addition to implicit discrimination. Here’s a nugget from Thomas’ dissent.

“Racial imbalances do not always disfavor minorities … [I]n our own country, for roughly a quarter-century now, over 70 percent of National Basketball Association players have been black. To presume that these and all other measurable disparities are products of racial discrimination is to ignore the complexities of human existence.”

Thomas appears to be saying that, sure, there’s plenty of discrimination floating around but it’d be unfair to chalk it all up to racism. Just look at the NBA. They’re fine, even though most players are black.

In making that point, Thomas fails to acknowledge the actual application of disparate impact claims. Just because the NBA employs a majority of black players doesn’t mean that there is discrimination at work — or that a white player would file a suit to claim as much. Even if that were to happen, the courts would then still have to determine whether the claims of disparate impact discrimination were valid and violated the law. So merely claiming that, in some industries, for instance, minorities have a majority stake apparently does nothing to address the actual application of the law.

But there is one aspect of Thomas’ argument that is indisputable: A majority of NBA players are black.

Your dignity is not the government’s problem

In a win for marriage equality advocates around the country, the court ruled that all states must license and recognize same-sex marriage — regardless of state laws or where the marriages were performed. Justice Anthony Kennedy notably used the word “dignity” nine times in his 34-page opinion. Thomas had a different take on the issue of dignity.

“The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.”

Despite being beaten, raped, and treated as subhuman property — all while living under a government that ostensibly permitted such treatment — slaves either did not lose their dignity at all or, in a broader reading, they can’t blame the government for any loss of dignity. Basically, not the government’s fault, Thomas appears to be saying.

By that application, Thomas’ point seems to be that same-sex couples should just buck up and recognize that it’s the not the government’s role to “bestow dignity.” Article source: msnbc.com/msnbc/justice-clarence-thomas-head-scratching-jaw-dropping-dissents

 

Clarence Thomas accused of sexual abuse in confirmation hearings with lewd details of “Pubic Hair” & “Long Dong Silver” on National TV

In the above video Anita Hill stated in her Senate testimony on 10/12/91 about Clarence Thomas;

“He would turn the conversation to a discussion of sexual matters. His conversations were very vivid. He spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes. He talked about pornographic materials depicting individuals with large penises or large breasts involving various sex acts. On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess. Because I was extremely uncomfortable talking about sex with him at all, and particularly in such a graphic way, I told him that I did not want to talk about this subject. I would also try to change the subject to education matters or to non-sexual personal matters, such as his background or his beliefs.” Hill also claimed Thomas stated “there is a pubic hair in my Coke” and that he spoke of “Long Dong Silver“.

 

The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

With new evidence that Clarence Thomas lied to get onto the Supreme Court after being accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill while working at the EEOC, it’s time to take the idea of impeachment seriously.

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

The Daily Caller is a 24-hour news publication providing its audience with original reporting, thought-provoking commentary and breaking news.

Lillian McEwen breaks her 19-year silence about Justice Clarence Thomas

In the above article, ex girlfriend Lillian McEwen stated “He was obsessed with porn.” “He would talk about what he had seen in magazines and films, if there was something worth noting.”

McEwen also said that the conservative Thomas was constantly on the make at work. “He was always actively watching the women he worked with to see if they could be potential partners,” said McEwen. “It was a hobby of his.” She added that he once told her he had asked a woman at work what her bra size was.

Lying Under Oath Could be Grounds for Removal from Office

If McEwen’s accusations are true, that would collaborate Anita Hill’s testimony and prove that Clarence Thomas lied to the Senate, committed perjury, engaged in Sexual Harassment and should be removed as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

 

SAMUEL ALITO UNFIT TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

 

Samuel Alito Quotes 1600s to Justify Outlawing Abortions

Samuel Alito reaches back to legal writings in 17th century England to show that the right to abortion services is not deeply rooted in our history. He cites Sir Edward Cook, writing in 1644 that abortion is a crime.

In the draft Supreme Court opinion that will live in infamy, Samuel Alito says, on page one, the Constitution makes no mention of abortion. The Constitution, also, makes no mention of the right to travel. The government has never granted us the right to travel. Yet, we have always had it.

Roe versus Wade links the right to abortion services, to the right to privacy, which we, also, assumed that we have, but the Constitution does not mention a right to privacy, and Samuel Alito, and the majority of the Supreme Court, don`t believe that you have a right to privacy. They believe that they have a right to privacy. It was the first time, in its history, has ordered an investigation of the very worst thing that has ever happened to the Supreme Court. The court`s privacy has been invaded.

The chief justice calls the violation of the court`s privacy, quote, egregious breach of trust. And that`s how the Supreme Court feels when they lose their privacy, it`s egregious for them. But they don`t care how you feel when they take your privacy away. The private deliberations of the Supreme Court have been invaded by the leak of the Alito first draft of the revocation of a constitutional right. Samuel Alito says that a right to abortion services is not, quote, deeply rooted in this nation`s history.

Women on the Supreme Court are not deeply rooted in this nation`s history. Nowhere does the Constitution say that women can serve on the Supreme Court. Nowhere does the constitution say that Black people can serve on the Supreme Court.

The Founders thought only white men should ever serve on the Supreme Court. The Founders were the original proponents of affirmative action exclusively for white men. The Founders deeply and fervently believed in carrying out the mass murder of as many members of the native tribes of this continent and enslaving as many Black people as was necessary for white men to reign supreme in this land. That is deeply rooted in this nation`s history.

If you are using “deeply rooted in this nation`s history” as the basis for what you think is right and just and you are lost. You are morally lost. Samuel Alito reaches back to legal writings in 17th century England to show that the right to abortion services is not deeply rooted in our history. He cites Sir Edward Cook, writing in 1644 that abortion is a crime.

In 1644, in England, they were still having witch trials ending in the execution of the convicted witches, and Sir Edward Cook helped English law define which is when he rewrote English law in 1604 to make it even more cruel in witchcraft trials. He wrote a witch is a person who hath conference with the devil to consult with him or to do some act.

So, Samuel Alito is quoting approvingly the 1644 judgment on abortion of an English aristocrat who said a witch is a person who has conference with the devil. Samuel Alito is reaching back four centuries to use Sir Edward Cook, as a moral authority on abortion, a man who believed in witches and believed they were working with the devil and believed that witches should be murdered by the state and he helped make sure that they were murdered by the state in England.

 

’17th Century Misogynist’ Cited Multiple Times In Justice Alito’s Draft Opinion

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade cites a virulent 17th century misogynist multiple times. Alito also saying some supporters of “liberal access to abortion” are trying to suppress Black births, among other statements.

 

 

Supreme Court rejects Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ from grand jury subpoena for tax returns

The Supreme Court rejected President Trump’s claim of “absolute immunity” from a New York grand jury subpoena for his financial records.

A 7 to 2 Supreme Court decision rejected Trump claim of ‘absolute immunity’ from grand jury subpoena for tax returns.

And who felt Trump should be treated like a Dictator and have ‘absolute immunity’?

REPUBLICAN APPOINTED “Justices” Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

 

NEIL GORSUCH UNFIT TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

Judge Neil Gorsuch Would Have Let this Trucker Die!

On a freezing night in January 2009, Alphonse Maddin was driving a truck with a load of meat through Illinois. The brakes on the trailer froze. The temperature was 27 degrees below zero. As he waited for help, he started having trouble breathing. His skin was cracking and his speech was slurring.

He called his employer. They told him to remain with the truck. Instead, he detached the trailer from the truck and drove to safety. For saving his own life, he was fired by the company. He sued the company and Gorsuch was the only judge who sided against the trucker.

 

Only One Judge Ruled Against Freezing Truck Driver… Trump’s.

 

Sen. Al Franken Grills Neil Gorsuch on Frozen Trucker Case in Extended Questioning

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) grilling Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch during his Supreme Court confirmation hearing about the so-called frozen trucker case of Alphonse Maddin. Gorsuch ruled it was right

 

Father Testifies That Gorsuch’s Decision Against Autistic Children Tore His Family Apart

In this Majority Report clip, we watch a portion of Jeffrey Perkins—the father of an autistic child who was compelled to move his child to a private school in Boston because public schools could not meet his needs—testifying to the way that Neil Gorsuch’s 10th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion following the court’s decision to lower the federal standards to practically nothing for students with disabilities cost him a fortune and tore his family apart.

 

Neil Gorsuch is anti-women and anti-LGBT

 

AMY CONEY BARRETT UNFIT TO BE A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE

Barrett proves to be totally unfit to be a Judge in ANY Court, let alone the United States Supreme Court by being unable to answer the most basic legal and constitutional questions.

 

Amy Coney Barrett can’t name five freedoms in the First Amendment

 

Unearthed video from 2016 in a CBS News interview with Amy Coney Barrett shows her warning of Supreme Court appointments that “could dramatically flip the balance of power in the court.”

Judge Barrett has the approval of ultraconservative and anti-abortion groups, and her views are out of step with the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly support access to safe, legal abortion care. Seventy-seven percent of people in this country believe the Supreme Court should uphold Roe v. Wade. We need a Supreme Court justice who will honor precedent, including Roe v. Wade.

 

Amy Coney Barrett Proves She’s As Corrupt As We Feared She’d Be

Amy Coney Barrett has decided that she doesn’t need to recuse herself from a case involving the Koch-funded group Americans For Prosperity, even though the group spent big money to run pro-Coney Barrett ads during her confirmation. This is a blatant conflict of interest, and she is proving that she is just as corrupt and immoral as everyone thought that she would be.

 

Amy Coney Barrett refused to say that the Supreme Court decision that protects access to birth control was rightly decided. When past Republican and Democratic-appointed nominees were asked the same question, their answers were very clear.

 

Amy Coney Barrett Caught Lying To Senate?

Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court Senate hearing quickly went off the rails.

 

https://nowthisnews.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-confirmed-to-supreme-court-in-unprecedented-vote-against-rbgs-dying

Amy Coney Barrett Confirmed To Supreme Court Against RBG’s Dying Wishes

Per the above article; “In an unprecedented vote one week before voting concludes in the 2020 election, the Senate approved federal appellate judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice Monday night in a 52-48 vote along party lines. She is the first justice confirmed with support from just one party since 1869, according to The National Journal.

All Republicans except for Sen. Susan Collins of Maine voted to confirm Barrett, and all Democrats voted against it.

Barrett’s confirmation makes the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative majority, with Trump having nominated one-third of the court. Five of the six conservative justices have now been appointed by Republican presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush in 2000 and President Donald Trump).

This is the fastest a nominee has been confirmed to the highest court in the land since 1975 — and confirmation has never happened this close to an election, or in the midst of an election: as of Monday evening , at least 63.6 million Americans have already voted. That 1975 confirmation was for Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who had much more broad bipartisan support than Barrett does: he was confirmed in a 98-0 vote, in stark contrast to Barrett’s 52-48 vote. President Trump and Republicans rushed to make that a reality in the midst of federal elections they are at risk of losing, breaking their own rules and precedents in the process.

The late Ruth Bader Ginsburg died of complications from cancer on September 18, 2020. Seven days after Ginsburg’s death, Trump held a nominating ceremony for Barrett in the White House Rose Garden, against the express wishes of Ginsburg. NPR reported that Ginsburg told her granddaughter in the days before her death, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

 

 

 

Serious questions remain about whether Kavanaugh lied to the Senate. Under Republican direction, the Senate requested and reviewed only a small fraction of Kavanaugh’s records, and what it did receive was provided through a partisan Republican lawyer instead of by the nonpartisan professionals at the National Archives. The few documents that were made public show that Kavanaugh was less than forthcoming, and probably outright untruthful, on a number of issues. Leaked emails have been damning.

Experts agree that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath numerous times.

 

Kavanaugh Sided with SeaWorld After Trainer Was Drowned By Whale

After a SeaWorld trainer was drowned by a killer whale in 2010, Judge Kavanaugh said the company was immune from penalty. Kavanaugh has proven to be a Corrupt Corporatist who rules against consumers and 87% of the time in favor of Corporations.

 

New York Times reporters Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly discuss the reporting in their new book, “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation” about the allegations of sexual misconduct that came out during the confirmation hearing of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Aired on 09/16/19.

 

 

Ret. Justice John Stevens: Kavanaugh Disqualified Himself From Supreme Court

John Paul Stevens, one of the only living retired Supreme Court justices, believes that Brett Kavanaugh’s emotional, angry testimony disqualified him from being able to serve effectively on the Court.

 

The above video shows examples of Brett Kavanaugh LYING

 

Accusations Against Kavanaugh

 

Experts and Friends Say Kavanaugh Lied Under Oath | Law & Crime

Legal experts, pundits and former peers of Brett Kavanaugh believe the Supreme Court nominee lied under oath during his re-hearing on Thursday.

Experts agree that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath numerous times, so he can be be removed from the bench and could face prison time.

 

HOW KAVANAUGH AND OTHER REPUBLICAN APPOINTED JUDGES CAN BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH

Trump, Mitch McConnell and Republicans has been packing the courts with unqualified judges. Here is how we go about fairly, honestly and ethically unpacking the courts

 

https://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Two-ways-Democrats-can-remove-Kavanaugh-without-13317283.php

Per the above article: “A Democratic Congress and a future Democratic president could remove Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court if they wanted without needing to impeach him. There are two other ways to kick a sitting justice off the court – neither of which requires a supermajority.

In the first, a new president would nominate and the Senate would confirm by majority vote a justice – in this case Kavanaugh – to a different post on an intermediate court of appeals (say the D.C. Circuit, where Kavanaugh formerly served). The justice would, in effect, be demoted.

It finds support in an 1803 Supreme Court case called Stuart v. Laird. The fading Federalist Party of John Adams had created 16 new federal judgeships in 1801 – in part to spare Supreme Court justices from having to “ride the circuit” and hear regional appellate cases. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans triumphed at the polls and abolished the new positions in 1802.

The second alternative method of relieving a justice of his or her duties. In a 2006 article in the Yale Law Journal, two scholars (conservatives, as it happens), Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, amassed historical evidence that the Framers understood the “good behavior” standard to be judicially, rather than just politically, enforceable.

They pointed out that judicial removal proceedings were used in English law in the 1780s, and were included in the New York, South Carolina and Massachusetts pre-1787 constitutions. Moreover, they noted, “good behavior” was included by the Continental Congress as a standard in the 1787 Northwest Ordinance for courts in the territories – before there were a separate House and Senate to conduct an impeachment.

As (roughly) proposed in the Yale article, Congress could pass a statute authorizing a specially constituted bench of federal judges – say, five randomly drawn judges – to determine whether a particular judge (here, Kavanaugh) had violated the “good behavior” standard. That special bench could hold a hearing and, if convinced by the evidence, make the requisite finding to trigger exit from the bench. This approach wouldn’t require a congressional supermajority. It would need a presidential signature.

Current federal law contains a trace of this mechanism. When a judge is convicted of a felony, whether in state or federal court, the law now states that he or she “shall not hear or decide cases” unless a council of judges decides otherwise. To be sure, the judge keeps a salary in the interim. But the judge is effectively sidelined – as completely as if he or she were impeached.

The creation of a new vehicle for judicial peer review seems to be the optimal option, as it would create a nonpartisan, procedurally robust device for disciplining judges.

Supreme Court justices right now have no real supervisors when it comes to ethics, and impeachment has come to seem excessively partisan. A standing body, available for all cases of misconduct – not just a ticket for one ride only – would resolve that problem, no matter who the appointing president.

 

Brian Fallon: Roberts Court is Facing a Crisis of Legitimacy

WASHINGTON, D.C. March 13, 2020 – On Friday, Demand Justice Executive Director Brian Fallon released the following statement in response to news that a former Hawaii judge has joined a federal district court judge and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in criticizing the Roberts Court’s recent actions: The Roberts Court is facing a crisis of […]

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman published a paper entitled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy”

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman published a paper entitled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy” in the forthcoming issue of the Harvard Law & Policy Review blowing the whistle on the Roberts Court’s partisan, anti-democratic bias. “The Court’s hard right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy,” he wrote. “Indeed, the Roberts Court has contributed to insuring that the political system in the United States pays little attention to ordinary Americans and responds only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.

Both of these judges followed Justice Sotomayor in sounding the alarm on the five Republican justices’ allegiances to the Trump administration. Issuing a scathing dissent to a 5-4 decision permitting the Trump administration to institute a wealth test for immigrants, she wrote, “perhaps most troubling, the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others.

 

Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar in a Letter to John Roberts

The letter describes why he’s lost faith in the Supreme Court.

Per the above article; “James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, teaching federal jurisdiction for more than a decade. On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. Here’s some of his letter;

“Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.

This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.

I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.

The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst”.

 

It’s Time to Retire Lifetime Appointments for Supreme Court Justices

When Supreme Court justices enter a room, you can feel the air change.

As stated in the above article, there’s nothing in the Constitution that explicitly promises federal judges “lifetime appointments.” The language of Article III says justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,”.

The Constitution was written at a time when surviving infancy was a triumph—let alone making it to the Supreme Court with enough time for a 30-plus-year stint on the bench.

“The people who created the Constitution of the United States in the 18th century lived in a very different world than we live in,” said Michael Sappol, a historian and author of A Traffic of Dead Bodies, a book about death and social identity. “The idea that judges would get life appointments had a different kind of meaning then than it does now.”

As more Americans live longer, institutions like the Supreme Court are undergoing profound change. In other words, a lifetime isn’t what it used to be. And plenty of people have argued that the highest court in the land ought to be subject to some of the restrictions that lower-level U.S. courts and top courts in other countries already have in place. “Every place else in the world they have age limits or term limits,” says Paul Carrington, a law professor at Duke University.

The five most recently retired Supreme Court justices averaged more than 25 years apiece on the bench. That’s nearly triple the nine-year average tenure of the court’s first five justices.

 

Justices of the Supreme Court should be allowed to serve for a maximum of 12 years. NO ONE should be guaranteed a job for life. Anyone appointed should be non-political and not affiliated with any political party.

The US Supreme Court has proven that it is not “Just”. Proof is how they almost always vote down party lines. This underscores how flawed our justice system is in general.

The US Supreme Court has become nothing more than a tool to force political policies of minority Republicans down the majority of American people’s throats.

We need a Supreme Court that can be trusted to be fair, nonpolitical, and ethical. We need to reform the Supreme Court.