2022 SCOTUS thread

[Winehole23]

Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College
The students benefiting from Harvard's discrimination against Asians have mainly been mediocre white legacy students and the children of large Harvard donors, like Jared Kushner.


Harvard was nominally challenged by a group of Asian American students, calling themselves the Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA), who alleged that Harvard’s use of affirmative action discriminated against Asian Americans seeking admission to the school. But those students were, in fact, treated as pawns in a larger game. SFFA was organized by Ed Blum, a conservative legal gadfly who has made it his life’s work to end affirmative action (https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/architect-edward-blum). Ed Blum is not Asian American. The conservative movement against affirmative action that Blum advances does not care about Asian Americans. Students with legitimate concerns about Harvard’s admissions process allowed their case to be co-opted by a conservative hell bent on restoring white privilege to the admissions process.



https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/students-for-fair-admissions-inc-v-president-fellows-of-harvard-college/



1587096005706760200

[Winehole23]

Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolinahttps://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-707

1587102895492808706

[boutons_deux]

life-long racist Roberts will make sure affirmative action will die

"independent state legislature" BS will remove Dems from Federal power for decades.

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgZt8aTXoAEC-QU?format=jpg&name=largehttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/10/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-affirmative-action-case.html

[boutons_deux]

Conservative Supreme Court justices are dragging the court deeper into a 'crisis of legitimacy'

blunt-talking editorial from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch,

the editors took two of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court to task

for doing little to halt the slide in the court's credibility

that has been in freefall after it became a 6-3 conservative majority.

they cited Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito over a Thomas ruling last week,

"In what universe is it OK for Justice Thomas not to recuse himself from anything Jan. 6-related when this is the kind of pillow talk he goes home to at night?"

As for Alito, he was scorched for lying his way onto the court (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/24/us/politics/alito-kennedy-abortion.html) that led to his Dobbs's majority decision that gutted Roe v. Wade 17 years later.

https://www.rawstory.com/dconservative-supreme-court

SOTUS6 don't GAF,

they know they are untouchable,

can do any fucking they want,

including raping the Constitution

America is fucked and unfuckable

no surprise if we continue to see dozens of shadow docket ruling on pivotal issues

[Winehole23]

Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/21-707

1587102895492808706

1587135687136083977

[boutons_deux]

"Isn’t there an equal protection problem if the university can’t consider the second essay?

asking a double-negative question? double negatives are always opaque

[Winehole23]

Pretending the 14th Amendment and US civil rights law require race neutral policy is more "originalist" hilarity

1587119501988052994

[boutons_deux]

Clarence Thomas Admitted Affirmative Action Helped Him

Yet He Seeks to Kill It

https://www.politicususa.com/2022/10/31/clarence-thomas-admitted-affirmative-action-helped-him-yet-he-seeks-to-kill-it.html

[boutons_deux]

SCOTUS6 gonna kill affirmative action, at least they didn't do it by shadow docket

[Winehole23]

1587177517714219009

[Winehole23]

"depriving people of rights and freedoms because of their skin phenotype can never be presumed to last longer than 25 years, any corresponding remedies will be limited likewise"

1587103951853621249

[boutons_deux]

christo fascist racist Catholic Roberts blocks Congress' access to Trash's tax returns

SCOTUS6 repeatedly, reliably ruling to help Repugs, and hurt Dems, non-males, non-Euro-whites, non-straights.

[Millennial_Messiah]

:lol resident Stalin chode sucker cry thread

[Winehole23]

you're overreacting, nothing happened yet

[DarrinS]

christo fascist racist Catholic Roberts blocks Congress' access to Trash's tax returns

SCOTUS6 repeatedly, reliably ruling to help Repugs, and hurt Dems, non-males, non-Euro-whites, non-straights.


Solid take. :lmao

[vy65]

"depriving people of rights and freedoms because of their skin phenotype can never be presumed to last longer than 25 years, any corresponding remedies will be limited likewise"

1587103951853621249

It’s in the majority opinion. Do you want to ignore it? Give us your take on what Justice O’Connor’s statement means.

[Winehole23]

It’s in the majority opinion. Do you want to ignore it? Give us your take on what Justice O’Connor’s statement means.I don't TV think the 25 years have elapsed yet, what's the hurry?

[vy65]

I don't TV think the 25 years have elapsed yet, what's the hurry?

No hurry, but the case has come up. What is your take on the majority opinion's statement about a 25 year sunset ?

[Winehole23]

No hurry, but the case has come up. What is your take on the majority opinion's statement about a 25 year sunset ?I wasn't aware it would cause all affirmative action to cease to exist after 2022, has that been your impression?

[ElNono]

No hurry, but the case has come up. What is your take on the majority opinion's statement about a 25 year sunset ?

It was certainly not a strict sunset, more of a wish that it wouldn’t be necessary as society became more inclusive.

[boutons_deux]

Trash separating border families, Pootin stealing Ukrainian kids, SCOTUS destroying NA families: fascist hallmarks

Clarence Thomas May Destroy Native Children’s Rights Based on a Lie

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments inBrakeen v. Haalend,

a case engineered to hobble the federal government’s power to protect Native communities from exploitation.

The plaintiffs are asking the justices to invalidate the 44-year-old Indian Child Welfare Act,

which prioritizes the placement of Native children in custody proceedings with Native families.

But they’re also contesting a constitutional foundation of Indian law itself.

Allying with Republican legal groups and lawmakers,

the plaintiffs want to kneecap congressional authority to regulate tribes for the benefit of their own members.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/11/clarence-thomas-indian-child-welfare-originalism-lie.html

No non-Euro-white, non-male, non-Christian is safe from the white male supremacist fascist Repugs

[boutons_deux]

Whistleblower Confirms Conservative Justice Supreme Court Corruption

letter to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and in interviews with The New York Times,

the Rev. Rob Schenck said he was told the outcome of the 2014 case weeks before it was announced.

He used that information to prepare a public relations push, records show, and

he said that at the last minute he tipped off the president of Hobby Lobby,

the craft store chain owned by Christian evangelicals that was the winning party in the case.
…
The minister’s account comes at a time of rising concerns about the court’s legitimacy.

A majority of Americans are losing confidence in the institution, polls show,

and its approval ratings are at a historic low.

Critics charge that the court has become increasingly politicized,

especially as a new conservative supermajority holds sway.

https://www.politicususa.com/2022/11/19/whistleblower-confirms-conservative-justice-supreme-court-corruption.html

My guess Alito is also the leaker of the abortion decison

America is fucked and unfuckable. The fascist Capitalist oligarchy has won

[Winehole23]

SCOTUS bypassing the appeals process to deliver political goods has become normal.

1598406453131444256

[boutons_deux]

'Frankenstein's Monster':

The Supreme Court's next big case can set the stage for more Trump chaos

At issue is Moore v. Harper, which could set the stage for the

implementation of the “Independent State Legislature Theory”

that would have a wide-ranging impact on federal elections by allowing state legislatures to manipulate voting districts even more than they are doing so now.

"Interest on the part of

conservative SCOTUS justices in using ISLT to help Republican outcomes was seen in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case,

where then Chief Justice Rehnquist’s concurring opinion referenced ISLT

in saying that another reason

to stop the Florida Supreme Court from ordering a state-wide manual recount

–which might have given the Presidency to Al Gore–was because

the Florida Supreme Court was violating the Elections Clause (https://www.vox.com/23161254/supreme-court-threat-democracy-january-6),"

https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court-2658831933

I would be not surprised if the fascist Catholic SCOTUS6 ruled ISLT to be Constitutional.

Could be 5-4, with Roberts desperate to protect his legacy as "his" LOL court

destroys American democracy, definitively.

[Winehole23]

Alito also characterized opposition to gay marriage as honorable, but somehpw denigrated sincerely held personal beliefs against interracial marriage.

SCOTUS trying to thread the needle on bigotry is on brand.

1599847657236594688

[Winehole23]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does the plaintiff even have standing? Who injured her?

1599782262870278145

[Winehole23]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does the plaintiff even have standing? Who injured her?

1599782262870278145
More specifically, how was the limitation on advisory opinions overcome here? Seems like there's neither a case nor a controversy.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/219us346

[ElNono]

More specifically, how was the limitation on advisory opinions overcome here? Seems like there's neither a case nor a controversy.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/219us346

There is a case because Colorado has a law in the books that prohibits discrimination based on race, origin, sexual preference or gender. A few States do actually.

This case predates the resolution of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which the SCOTUS solved on narrow procedural grounds, not resolving whether the law was unconstitutional.

[boutons_deux]

Alito also characterized opposition to gay marriage as honorable, but somehpw denigrated sincerely held personal beliefs against interracial marriage.

SCOTUS trying to thread the needle on bigotry is on brand.

1599847657236594688

SCOTUS5 Catholics ruling with Popery ethics, morals, misogyny not the US Constitution.

[boutons_deux]

The Supreme Court Could Chop Away at Anti-Discrimination Law Based on Literally Nothing

The high court's conservatives could alter protections for LGBTQ citizens based on

a case whose plaintiff describes

an entirely hypothetical injury.

Though the case raises a familiar constitutional question—

one that the high court has touched on in the recent past—it does so in

this instance while being almost entirely unmoored from any factual record or dispute.

https://newrepublic.com/article/169316/supreme-court-303-creative-elenis

Obviously, the plaintiff presented a case created by well-financed Christian fascists who hate LGBT, similar to the
C-U case

America is so fucked and unfuckable. and almost no Americans have the slightest clue.

[ElNono]

If we're being honest here, First Amendment does give you the right to be as racist and bigot as you want to be, tbh...

[boutons_deux]

Another loss for Trash and big lie strategy

SCOTUS refuses to take care against Dominion

[Winehole23]

Moore v Harper oral arguments on the independent state legislature theory. ACB so far seems to be unconvinced.

1600529828716941314

[Winehole23]

Here's a less polemical live blog

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=133564

[Winehole23]

Link to audio of the oral arguments:

https://www.c-span.org/supremeCourt/

[boutons_deux]

Moore v Harper oral arguments on the independent state legislature theory. ACB so far seems to be unconvinced.

1600529828716941314

so ISLT wins 5-4 w/o ACB

It's really up to Roberts, chasing legacy of "his" court that he no longer controls

[Winehole23]

There is a case because Colorado has a law in the books that prohibits discrimination based on race, origin, sexual preference or gender. A few States do actually.

This case predates the resolution of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which the SCOTUS solved on narrow procedural grounds, not resolving whether the law was unconstitutional.so, how was the plaintiff hurt by this law?

[ElNono]

so, how was the plaintiff hurt by this law?

The plaintiff argument is that the law, which is in effect, infringes on his/her First Amendment right.

[boutons_deux]

The plaintiff argument is that the law, which is in effect, infringes on his/her First Amendment right.

aka weaponized "freedom of expression" of Christian faith.

aka, "we intend to discriminate, persecute, free to express our hate, against people we don't like"

That's what Christ would do

[boutons_deux]

"

At least three of the six conservative justices — John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — seemed to be looking for a ruling that would preserve the courts’ role in the process, The NY Times reported (https://link.axios.com/click/29917598.334564/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cubnl0aW1lcy5jb20vMjAyMi8xMi8wNy91cy 9zdXByZW1lLWNvdXJ0LWZlZGVyYWwtZWxlY3Rpb25zLmh0bWw_ dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1uZXdzbGV0dGVyJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haW wmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPW5ld3NsZXR0ZXJfYXhpb3NwbSZzdHJl YW09dG9w/6004bc4704300c1ae269be66B9939f8d3)."

-- Axios email.

looks like ISLT is more in danger than I expected. great

[ElNono]

aka weaponized "freedom of expression" of Christian faith.

aka, "we intend to discriminate, persecute, free to express our hate, against people we don't like"

That's what Christ would do

^^^ you can say all this without repercussion thanks to the First Amendment...

[boutons_deux]

^^^ you can say all this without repercussion thanks to the First Amendment...

:lol What? who or what would otherwise "percuss" me?

[ElNono]

:lol What? who or what would otherwise "percuss" me?

re·per·cus·sion
noun
1.
an unintended consequence occurring some time after an event or action, especially an unwelcome one.
"the move would have grave repercussions for the entire region"

Similar: consequence result effect outcome byproduct reverberation

[boutons_deux]

GOP lawyer made a disastrous mistake during Supreme Court hearing

a crucial "mistake" made by the Republican-aligned lawyer on his "Democracy Docket" media platform that might cost them the case.

the Republican-aligned counsel went too far, and

failed to read the room in the face of skepticism from even conservative justices.

how broadly the Moore lawyer would argue the case.

And he went very broad,

arguing (https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/live-updates-u-s-supreme-court-hears-moore-v-harper/) from the start that

'there can’t be a limit on the [state legislature’s] power' to regulate congressional elections 'because it’s a federal function.'

In practice, that would mean that state courts could not strike down state laws pertaining to federal elections for violating their state constitutions," wrote Elias.

"In retrospect, this decision by the Moore lawyer

to take an absolutist position against state court review may well prove to be a mistake."

https://www.rawstory.com/moore-v-harper-supreme-court-case/

[Winehole23]

The plaintiff argument is that the law, which is in effect, infringes on his/her First Amendment right.To discriminate against gays, denying them accommodation because that's a core Christian belief.

Got it.

[ElNono]

To discriminate against gays, denying them accommodation because that's a core Christian belief.

Got it.

Never said it's not a double edged sword. Heck, it protected the Klan and their bigotry as well.

[Winehole23]

Never said it's not a double edged sword. Heck, it protected the Klan and their bigotry as well.seems like the injury here is totally hypothetical, but I guess that's where we are, SCOTUS bending over backwards to accommodate a Christian bigot who hasn't been prevented from doing anything yet.

[ElNono]

seems like the injury here is totally hypothetical, but I guess that's where we are, SCOTUS bending over backwards to accommodate a Christian bigot who hasn't been prevented from doing anything yet.

The injury is that the law is in the books. If you deem a law unconstitutional, you can sue and have it reviewed by the courts. This stuff happens all the time.

[Winehole23]

The injury is that the law is in the books. If you deem a law unconstitutional, you can sue and have it reviewed by the courts. This stuff happens all the time.so I can deem a law unconstitutional and have the Supreme Court vet any law I don't like?

[Will Hunting]

Moore v Harper oral arguments on the independent state legislature theory. ACB so far seems to be unconvinced.

1600529828716941314

My takeaways:
-Pretty much all of the justices except Gorsuch seemed unconvinced of the most broad version of ISLT but Alito & Thomas weren't very far off of it.
-Kavanaugh seemed to reject ISLT as a whole but wants to implement a more narrow review on state supreme courts for misreading state constitutions in extreme circumstances (relying a lot on the Bush v. Gore Rehnquist concurrence even though the justices all said that opinion should never have any precedent).
-Roberts and ACB asked questions about what that review would look like but seemed to reject ISLT as a whole.
-The 3 lib justices obviously think the whole thing is retarded.

Where I think we end up:
-A majority opinion that rejects ISLT but gives SCOTUS the power to overrule a state supreme court for abusing its discretion or misreading the state constitution on election-related laws in limited circumstances.

My opinion:
-In principle, a set-up where SCOTUS has the ability to overrule a partisan state supreme court grossly misinterpreting or ignoring a state constitution when it comes to redistricting or election laws is a good idea, but I don't trust this SCOTUS to apply their authority to overrule state supreme courts evenly, and Article 1, Section 4 of the constitution isn't enough for SCOTUS to just give itself this authority.

In this case, even though it benefited Democrats, it's clear the North Carolina state supreme court 100% abused its discretion by ruling that the NC state constitution's equal protection clause mandated absolute partisan fairness on a district map, so I understand why SCOTUS is trying to shoehorn a mechanism into law that prevents a state court from obvious judicial activism while at the same time rejecting a radical legal theory, but SCOTUS trying to solve this with a court opinion flies directly in the face of Rucho, so the whole thing is still inconsistent and motivated by partisanship.

Still, assuming I'm right, it's a lot better than an outcome where SCOTUS rules all independent commissions unconstitutional and/or takes away the governor's ability to veto bad maps.

[Will Hunting]

What's interesting is, the two key findings the NC supreme court made were:
1) the "free elections" clause of the state constitution includes a ban on partisan gerrymandering
2) the equal protection clause of the state constitution means that districts need to be drawn with partisan fairness in mind (this isn't the same as a ban on partisan gerrymandering as it goes a step further and mandates that districts need to be drawn while weighing partisan fairness as a factor)

2) has almost no basis and it's where the NCSC clearly abused its discretion; 1) is a lot more unclear and ambiguous, with state supreme court rulings that go both ways interpreting free elections clauses all over the country.

This whole lawsuit was stupid because the GOP just won the state supreme court in NC back and they're now able to gerrymander the map with a state supreme court that'll just overrule 1) and 2) as precedent. Where I think this lawsuit could significantly backfire for Moore is if SCOTUS makes a finding that overrules 2) but agrees with 1) and basically forces the new GOP court majority in North Carolina to read NC's "free elections" clause to include a ban on partisan gerrymandering.

[ElNono]

so I can deem a law unconstitutional and have the Supreme Court vet any law I don't like?

If you go through the process of filing a lawsuit and are willing to appeal/defend it all the way to the SCOTUS (and they take the case), sure.

[Will Hunting]

The injury is that the law is in the books. If you deem a law unconstitutional, you can sue and have it reviewed by the courts. This stuff happens all the time.
I think you still need to demonstrate that you have standing in some other respect (e.g., that the law has the potential to infringe on your rights).

SCOTUS rejected the most recent challenge to Obamacare because plaintiff couldn't articulate how they had standing to challenge an "unconstitutional" requirement to have health insurance when the penalty for not having health insurance was $0.

[Winehole23]

I think you still need to demonstrate that you have standing in some other respect (e.g., that the law has the potential to infringe on your rights).

SCOTUS rejected the most recent challenge to Obamacare because plaintiff couldn't articulate how they had standing to challenge an "unconstitutional" requirement to have health insurance when the penalty for not having health insurance was $0.that's what's unclear to me. how was standing established in this case?

[Will Hunting]

that's what's unclear to me. how was standing established in this case?
The law infringes (or has the potential to infringe) on her 1st amendment right of religion.

Even though she hadn't suffered any actual injury yet she had the potential to.

In the ACA case, there was no colorable way the petitioner would ever be damaged by a requirement to have health insurance when the penalty was $0.

[pgardn]

Please keep this thread going.
Its very good. I can’t keep up with the cases or the nuances, this helps.

[ElNono]

I think you still need to demonstrate that you have standing in some other respect (e.g., that the law has the potential to infringe on your rights).

SCOTUS rejected the most recent challenge to Obamacare because plaintiff couldn't articulate how they had standing to challenge an "unconstitutional" requirement to have health insurance when the penalty for not having health insurance was $0.

Well, sure. In this case, this is a resident of Colorado who's a business owner, so sorting out standing wasn't very complicated. Plus, IIRC, the initial suit was filed in Colorado.

[Winehole23]

The law infringes (or has the potential to infringe) on her 1st amendment right of religion.

Even though she hadn't suffered any actual injury yet she had the potential to.

In the ACA case, there was no colorable way the petitioner would ever be damaged by a requirement to have health insurance when the penalty was $0.Makes sense.

[ElNono]

The law infringes (or has the potential to infringe) on her 1st amendment right of religion.

Even though she hadn't suffered any actual injury yet she had the potential to.

In the ACA case, there was no colorable way the petitioner would ever be damaged by a requirement to have health insurance when the penalty was $0.

Yep. Once you have a decision from a lower court, you can file a Certiorari to have a higher court (including the SCOTUS) review it.

The difference with the SCOTUS is that it can decline.

[Will Hunting]

Similar to the ACA thing, I think Biden's student debt cancellation ultimately survives court because there's no clear way for the challengers to establish standing.

The fact your tax dollars are being applied in ways you don't agree with has no historical precedent as a way to establish standing (and for good reason).

[ElNono]

Similar to the ACA thing, I think Biden's student debt cancellation ultimately survives court because there's no clear way for the challengers to establish standing.

The fact your tax dollars are being applied in ways you don't agree with has no historical precedent as a way to establish standing (and for good reason).

Yeah, that's a completely different ball game.

[Will Hunting]

Yep. Once you have a decision from a lower court, you can file a Certiorari to have a higher court (including the SCOTUS) review it.

The difference with the SCOTUS is that it can decline.
Well you can get dismissed for lack of standing by a lower court and then still file for Certiorari, but it just means the higher court is gonna review the same issue re: standing.

[ElNono]

If you look at what's now known as the "shadow docket" in the SCOTUS, you can see the large amount of Certioraris filed (and declined) on every period. This is very common.

[ElNono]

Well you can get dismissed for lack of standing by a lower court and then still file for Certiorari, but it just means the higher court is gonna review the same issue re: standing.

Correct. But in this case standing wasn't an issue. The lower court accepted standing, but it ruled that the law wasn't infringing on the plaintiff's 1st amendment rights. That's how we got here.

[Winehole23]

Interesting contrast with Fulton


this case, seen together with Fulton, illuminates the strange world and strange world view we will have arrived at when the Court finds, as it certainly will, that Colorado cannot compel 303 Creative to do web design for a same-sex couple. The Court will have held that some corporations (Philadelphia) can be compelled to contract with corporations whose religious beliefs lead them to discriminate against gay couples but that gay couples (actual natural persons) cannot compel a corporation to contract with them.
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/contractsprof_blog/2022/10/contracts-and-the-first-amendment-in-scotus-303-creative.html

[Will Hunting]

Yeah true I see what you're saying, most of the time SCOTUS will just deny cert if you were dismissed for lack of standing, but if it's a major enough case then SCOTUS might take it up to address whether there is standing.

[Winehole23]

If you look at what's now known as the "shadow docket" in the SCOTUS, you can see the large amount of Certioraris filed (and declined) on every period. This is very common.the relatively large number of cases recently taken up without explanation before appeals have played out sure makes it look like SCOTUS is selecting cases based on political considerations.

https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/stephen-vladeck/the-shadow-docket/9781541602632/

[ElNono]

the relatively large number of cases recently taken up without explanation before appeals have played out sure makes it look like SCOTUS is selecting cases based on political considerations.

https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/stephen-vladeck/the-shadow-docket/9781541602632/

I'm not arguing that, just pointing out that Certioraris are not uncommon.

[boutons_deux]

Fascist Capitalists corrupting the SCOTUS6 even further, having bought their seats, in support of the deeply anti-democratic ISLT

Conservative donors pour ‘dark money’ into case that could upend US voting law

Groups submitting amicus briefs to supreme court case in support of Republican lawmakers received $90m in anonymous donations

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/16/dark-money-us-supreme-court-case-voting-law-moore-v-harper

[Winehole23]

Money buys access to justices for parties with cases pending.


In some years, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. does the honors. In others, it might be Justice Sonia Sotomayor or Justice Clarence Thomas presenting the squared-off hunks of marble affixed with the Supreme Court’s gilded seal.

Hewed from slabs left over from the 1930s construction of the nation’s high court and handed out in its magnificent Great Hall, they are a unique status symbol in a town that craves them. And while the ideological bents of the justices bestowing them might vary, there is one constant: All the recipients have given at least $5,000 to a charity favored by the justices, and, more often than not, the donors have a significant stake in the way the court decides cases.

The charity, the Supreme Court Historical Society, is ostensibly independent of the judicial branch of government, but in reality the two are inextricably intertwined. The charity’s stated mission is straightforward: to preserve the court’s history and educate the public about the court’s importance in American life. But over the years the society has also become a vehicle for those seeking access to nine of the most reclusive and powerful people in the nation. The justices attend the society’s annual black-tie dinner soirees, where they mingle with donors and thank them for their generosity, and serve as M.C.s to more regular society-sponsored lectures or re-enactments of famous cases.

The society has raised more than $23 million over the last two decades. Because of its nonprofit status, it does not have to publicly disclose its donors — and declined when asked to do so. But The New York Times was able to identify the sources behind more than $10.7 million raised since 2003, the first year for which relevant records were available.

At least $6.4 million — or 60 percent — came from corporations, special interest groups, or lawyers and firms that argued cases before the court, according to an analysis of archived historical society newsletters and publicly available records that detail grants given to the society by foundations. Of that, at least $4.7 million came from individuals or entities in years when they had an interest in a pending federal court case on appeal or at the high court, records show.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/30/us/politics/supreme-court-historical-society-donors-justices.html

[boutons_deux]

‘The nation’s executioners’:

the US supreme court’s shift towards capital punishment

Conservative super-majority especially unwilling to consider appeals, in stance that has flown under the radar

Lawyers for the condemned man had petitioned the court (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22A603/251626/20230106175840585_2023-01-06_Fratta%20SCOTUS%20stay%20app%20final.pdf) in a last-ditch effort to save his life. They argued that critical evidence at his trial given by a

key witness had been tainted,

as she had been encouraged under hypnosis to change her testimony.

The supreme court’s order (https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/010923zr_f2ah.pdf) was brief and blunt,
No explanation. No ambiguity. No way back.

its default position has been to allow executions to proceed even in cases where serious constitutional issues are at stake.

the nation’s highest court, which used to offer death row inmates the hope of a final review, has all but closed its doors to their petitions.

the conservative justices have become the nation’s executioners.”

the hardening of the court’s approach to 2019 when it effectively sided with the Trump administration in its rush to carry out federal executions for the first time in 16 years (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/death-penalty-capital-punishment-us-justice-department-resumes-executions).

the judicial killing of 13 federal inmates (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/15/dustin-higgs-federal-execution-trump) in the twilight of Trump’s presidency.


https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/12/us-supreme-court-death-row-executions

[boutons_deux]

It's time to admit this right-wing US Supreme Court is a corrupt, autocratic tribune

https://www.rawstory.com/media-library/justices-of-the-us-supreme-court-pose-for-their-official-photo-at-the-supreme-court-in-washington-dc-on-october-7-2022-sea.jpg?id=32767857&width=1200&height=420

calling a small group of partisan lawyers a "supreme" court doesn't make it one.

There's nothing supreme about the six-pack of far-right-wing political activists

who are presently soiling our people's ideals of justice by proclaiming their own antidemocratic biases to be the law of the land.

On issues of economic fairness, women's rights, racial justice, corporate supremacy, environmental protection, theocratic rule and other fundamentals,

these unelected, black-robed extremists are imposing an illegitimate elitist agenda on America

that the people do not want and ultimately will not tolerate.

https://www.rawstory.com/2659100806

How can "people" not tolerate the illegit, corrupt SCOTUS6?

'the strong do what they can

and

the weak suffer what they must'

-- Thucydides'

[boutons_deux]

^^^ you can say all this without repercussion thanks to the First Amendment...

If you had legal training, you would know the First Amendment pertains only to govt censorship.

[ElNono]

If you had legal training, you would know the First Amendment pertains only to govt censorship.

Exactly. The fact that there's no government law mandating censorship in this forum is a big reason you can express yourself like that.

Try that in China or even Russia.

[boutons_deux]

Hacktivist Court Greedily Eying Up Something Else Good It Can Destroy

The Supreme Court will hear a case that could basically decimate the CFPB, whose mission is (https://www.consumerfinance.gov/) “ agency dedicated to making sure you are treated fairly by banks, lenders and other financial institutions.”

Even the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/27/us/supreme-court-cfpb-consumer-watchdog.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur), bastion of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous, warned a ruling against the bureau,

“could cast doubt on every regulation and enforcement action it took in the dozen years of its existence.”

The radicals identifying as “conservatives” have become experts at finding any spot they can pick at to weaken independent agencies that actually help protect The People.

These same people are all over the airwaves pretending they’re outraged over the toxic train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.

Thus, the “argument” being kicked up to the hacktivists ruling this Supreme Court.

These radical right wing activist judges are ruling not by the will of the people,

but rather thanks to a seat stolen from then President Barack Obama by Republican Senator Mitch McConnell and the subsequent installation, some sans real vetting and one of them with 4,500 tips to the FBI ignored, of three “conservatives” —

only one of whom is actually a conservative, but all of whom function as activists for a radical right wing agenda, with which most of the country disagrees.

https://politicususa.substack.com/p/scotus-sees-another-good-thing-to

Bannon's "deconstruction of the administrative state" is the wet dream of the Capitalist fascist oligarchy.

Will pro-Capitalist / anti-citizen SCOTUS6 destroy the Exec branch by ruling it violates the "non-delegation clause"?

Any fucking thing is possible with these illegit political flunkies in robes-for-life

[boutons_deux]

The SCOTUS6, oligarchical fans of debt and wage slavery for the restofus, will be thrilled to kick Biden and his loan forgiveness project in the balls

[boutons_deux]

The Curious Rise of a Supreme Court Doctrine That Threatens Biden’s Agenda

The “major questions doctrine,” promoted by conservative commentators,

is of recent vintage but

has enormous power and

may doom student loan relief and other programs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-major-questions-doctrine.html

[boutons_deux]

Clarence Thomas opposes a 'landmark precedent' guaranteeing defendants the right to counsel


Gideon v. Wainwright, a 1963 decision guaranteeing criminal defendants the right to legal counsel.

Three years later, the protections of Gideon grew even stronger thanks to the Warren Court's 1966 ruling in Miranda v. Arizona.

Far-right Justice Clarence Thomas, during his 32 years on the High Court, has made no secret of his disdain for the Warren Court.

And that includes Gideon v. Wainwright.

"In a 2019 dissent, in which he was joined by Donald Trump (https://www.rawstory.com/trump-news/?utm_campaign=SmartLinks) appointee Neil Gorsuch, Thomas wrote that

the justices who decided Gideon decades ago didn't attempt 'to square the expansive rights they recognized with the original meaning of' the Constitution.

while this was only two justices calling Gideon into question, we've learned that

precedent only means what the Court's current majority wants it to mean.

the irony of Thomas and Gorsuch wanting to revisit a landmark defamation precedent, given that doing so could hurt Fox News."

The "landmark defamation precedent" that Rubin is referring to is New York Times v. Sullivan (https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/clarence-thomas-fox-news-actual-malice-rcna74243).

In that case, the Warren Court unanimously ruled that in defamation lawsuits, the defendant has to prove "actual malice"

https://www.rawstory.com/clarence-thomas-opposes-a-landmark-precedent-guaranteeing-defendants-the-right-to-counsel-legal-columnist

[Winehole23]

The Curious Rise of a Supreme Court Doctrine That Threatens Biden’s Agenda

The “major questions doctrine,” promoted by conservative commentators,

is of recent vintage but

has enormous power and

may doom student loan relief and other programs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/06/us/politics/supreme-court-major-questions-doctrine.htmlthe bigger issue is what it's doing to the EPA and the administrative state, tbh

[boutons_deux]

RBG’s death set off a pattern of 'distrust and discord' that still plagues the Supreme Court today


https://www.rawstory.com/media-library/republicans-are-nervous-of-letting-voters-know-amy-coney-barretts-views-washington-post.png?id=24487559&width=1200&height=645

6-3 majority overturned Roe v. Wade with its 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Public confidence in the Court (https://www.alternet.org/2022/10/conservative-justices), in poll after poll, has continued to sink since that widely protested ruling.

, "Within days of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's memorial service in late September 2020,

boxes of her files and other office possessions were moved down to a dark, windowless theater on the Supreme Court's ground floor….

The abrupt mandate from Chief Justice John Roberts' administrative team to clear out Ginsburg's office and make way for the next justice

broke from the common practice of allowing staff sufficient time to move and providing a new justice with temporary quarters if needed while permanent chambers were readied….

The confirmation of then-President Donald Trump's chosen successor, Indiana-based U.S. Appeals Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett, was as much a fait accompli at the Court as in the political sphere.

That behind-the-scenes drama and internal tensions over cases that followed,

accelerated by all three Trump appointees,

led to a new level of distrust and discord among the justices that lingers today."

https://www.rawstory.com/rbgs-set-off-a-pattern-of-distrust-and-discord-that-still-plagues-the-supreme-court-today-2659648106

[boutons_deux]

Guess what?

Clarence Thomas's GOP megadonor pal has

a big collection of Hitler stuff!


Crow, the billionaire heir to a real estate fortune, has said that he’s filled his property with these mementoes

because he hates communism and fascism. :lol

Nonetheless, his collections caused an uproar (https://news.artnet.com/art-world/hitler-art-collector-marco-rubio-fundraiser-334817) back in 2015 when Marco Rubio attended a fundraiser at Crow’s house on the eve of Yom Kippur.

Rubio’s critics thought the timing was inappropriate given, you know, the Hitler stuff.

“I still can’t get over the collection of Nazi memorabilia,”

“It would have been helpful to have someone explain the significance of all the items.

Without that context, you sort of just gasp when you walk into the room.”

One memorable aspect was the paintings:

“something done by George W. Bush next to a Norman Rockwell next to one by Hitler.”

They also said it was “startling” and “strange” to see the dictator sculptures in the backyard.

Through his largesse, Crow has gained a unique form of access, spending days in private with one of the most powerful people in the country.

Thomas “seems to have completely disregarded his higher ethical obligations.”

, this isn’t the first time Thomas’s objectivity and ethical conduct have been questioned.

imagine if the right’s ubiquitous bugaboo George Soros flew Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson to Gstaad for a three-day ski weekend. :lol

imagine if Soros took any one of them out for a frogurt.

Tucker Carlson would be compelled to do a two-hour investigative report.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/8/2162819/-Guess-what-Clarence-Thomas-GOP-megadonor-pal-has-a-big-collection-of-Hitler-stuff

[boutons_deux]

"It is your duty": Lawmakers demand chief justice probe Clarence Thomas secret trips

"It is well past time for the Supreme Court to align with the rest of government in a proper code of ethics"

https://www.salon.com/2023/04/10/it-is-your-duty-lawmakers-demand-chief-justice-probe-clarence-thomas-secret-trips_partner/

i expect NOTHING to change. Ethics, morals have no place in the SCOTUS6 thinkings

[Winehole23]

A ver...

1646190056137269248

[Winehole23]

The sale was totally legit, one wonders why Justice Thomas hid it.


The transaction marks the first known instance of money flowing from the Republican megadonor to the Supreme Court justice. The Crow company bought the properties for $133,363 from three co-owners — Thomas, his mother and the family of Thomas’ late brother, according to a state tax document and a deed dated Oct. 15, 2014, filed at the Chatham County courthousehttps://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-real-estate-scotus

[Winehole23]

Must be nice to have a patron, every Supreme Court Justice should have one.

I wonder who Justice Kavanaugh's patron is?


There is one critical detail ProPublica left slightly open: Does Leola Williams still live in her Savannah home? The reporters noted that they were certain Thomas’ mother lived in this house through 2020, per public records and social media, and that her neighbors said she still lives there.

But Slate can confirm that she resides in the house to this day. Two weeks ago, Joel Anderson interviewed her there for the upcoming season of Slow Burnhttps://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/04/clarence-thomas-mom-billionaire-house.html

[Winehole23]

lol the NCAA having stricter ethics than the Supreme Court.

Too bad for Reggie Bush, lucky thing for Clarence Thomas.

[Winehole23]

Correlation isn't causation, but that's a pretty good batting average.

1644007271096102913

[Winehole23]

Imagine how the right would react if Kagan's mother lived in a home owned by George Soros.https://twitter.com/dgordon52/status/1646682477669261319?s=20

[Winehole23]

1646720580253802496

[Winehole23]

1646899012061081600

[boutons_deux]

SCOTUS6 know they are untouchable by the Senate that will maybe never have 67 votes to remove them.

and SCOTUS6 have no concept of ethics or propriety, so no amount of disgrace or ethical violations would cause they to resign to protect the honor :lol and legitimacy :lol and credibility :lol of SCOTUS

Just yet another way, America is fucked and unfuckable.

Repugs ignore the blue slip shit,

but feckless Dems still allow blue slip blocking of Dem nominees. WTF

And FUCK YOU, Constitution

[Winehole23]

Lazy, incompetent or corrupt. Is there an option I'm leaving out?

1647586232409497601

[pgardn]

Just like Trump.

Another conservative who hates taxes and loves his access to rich donors.
So typical that the red team, who claims big this and that, but refuse to point at themselves.
And the red team gets all these poor white snowflakes who need to blame someone else for their failures to love these cheats.

Low information party at it again. Just say “liberal, socialist, or communists” so they can allow their willfully ignorant base to pawn off the anger on irrelevance. Feel good red snowflakes?

“Those colored people are supposed to be poor, I’m not! Must be a Commie behind this!”

[Winehole23]

So then, hypothetically, would it be OK if Justice Jackson's mom were living rent free/tax free in a house owned by George Soros?

1647942601130094601

[Winehole23]

Selling real estate at a loss is a classic tactic to launder money/cheat on taxes.

1647932696813813762

[Winehole23]

Any other guesses on why a SC Justice would give a sweetheart deal to a billionaire?

[Winehole23]

Either way, whether Thomas made money or not, not disclosing it smells.

[Winehole23]

"Supreme Court Justice confused about legally required financial reporting"

1650571700663115800

[Winehole23]

At no other level of the judiciary would this be at all cool. Disclosing the sale but not the buyer is shady af.

1650834544801509376

[Winehole23]

Both of these guys should be impeached.

[Winehole23]

At no other level of the judiciary would this be at all cool. Disclosing the sale but not the buyer is shady af.

1650834544801509376The Greenberg Traurig client got Gorsuch's vote 8 out of 12 times.

[Winehole23]

Dp

[Winehole23]

1650999638990946304

[Winehole23]

1651657465379823618

[Winehole23]

"I'm buddies with both of them, they're cool."

1651654053808447489

[Winehole23]

Conservative jihad against the administrative state.

1653032319513509889

[ElNono]

Conservative jihad against the administrative state.

1653032319513509889

Hopefully they don't have to make up a novel legal standard out of thin air to overrule the Chevron doctrine, like they did with Dobbs.

[Winehole23]

Hopefully they don't have to make up a novel legal standard out of thin air to overrule the Chevron doctrine, like they did with Dobbs.they did so in WV v. EPA as well, making up new bullshit to suit old Republican priorities has been a motif.

[Winehole23]

Impressive patronage, this whole relationship looks crooked as hell.

1654070027006402560

1654070282422824960

1654070285014900736

[Winehole23]

I wonder if Justice Thomas declared any of this shit on his taxes.

[Winehole23]

1653751386075455488

[Winehole23]

without an accountability mechanism or a functioning sense of shame in Clarence Thomas, nothing is likely to happen.

1654071677142048771

[Winehole23]

“Harlan Crow has long been passionate about the importance of quality education and giving back to those less fortunate, especially at-risk youth."

[Winehole23]

haven't quite reached the bottom yet

1654265623092838402
1654275164236914689

[Winehole23]

GIVE GINNI THOMAS THIS SACK OF CASH, NO FINGERPRINTS

[Winehole23]

1654325303219453952

[Winehole23]

1654321345134579712 (https://twitter.com/SenWhitehouse/status/1654321345134579712?s=20)

[Winehole23]

1654300611192532994

1654300614120161281

[Winehole23]

Telling critics in Congress that if they wanted serious reform they simply needed to make it worth his while, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas promised Friday he would adopt a code of ethics for the right price. “After hearing out the Senate Judiciary Committee’s concerns, I admit to seeing the wisdom in developing some kind of ethical framework for the Supreme Court, so long as Papa gets some sugar,” the senior associate justice said in a prepared statement, emphasizing that he would be willing to submit to a code of conduct that included ignoring special interests and disclosing private trips if there was some serious coinage thrown his way. “It’s reasonable to believe justices serving on the highest court in the land should hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, if only so citizens can have faith in their decision-making process. And if that means so much to lawmakers, they should take whatever donors are giving me every year and double it. Also, in order for me to adhere to some sense of values, Ginni needs to wet her beak.” Thomas suggested he might also support term limits for justices if he was guaranteed a yearly all-expenses-paid trip to the Maldives in retirement.https://www.theonion.com/clarence-thomas-promises-to-adopt-code-of-ethics-for-th-1850409408

[Winehole23]

1655990886063546370

1655993723866738688

[Winehole23]

asking questions about lavish private donations to Supreme Court justices undermines democracy.


Meanwhile, Sen. Mike Crapo, the top Republican on the Finance Committee, made it clear Tuesday that he would oppose any efforts to force Crow to provide the information, saying they would “undermine the independence of the Supreme Court and its individual Justices.”https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/09/harlan-crow-clarence-thomas-gifts-00095967

[boutons_deux]

Supreme Court to consider overruling Chevron doctrine

will hear a case that could significantly scale back federal agencies’ authority, with major implications for the future of environmental and other regulations.

The justices next term will consider whether to overturn a decades-old precedent that grants agencies deference when Congress left ambiguity in a statute.

the Chevron deference has become one of the most frequently cited precedents in administrative law since the decision was first handed down in 1984.

It involves a two-step test:

First, judges decide if Congress has in the statute directly spoken to the precise question at issue.

If it is ambiguous, courts defer to agencies as long as their actions are based on a “permissible construction.”

Some of the high court’s conservatives have raised concern about the precedent and how it has expanded the reach of agencies’ authority.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3981417-supreme-court-to-consider-overruling-chevron-doctrine

Of Course, SCOTUS6 whores will ovrrule Chevron doctrine

another battle in their neoliberal war of "deconstructing the administrative state".

[boutons_deux]

He followed strict rules as a judge and wants Supreme Court justices to do the same

A growing list of reports (https://www.npr.org/2023/05/05/1174057179/supreme-court-congress-ethical-hearing) spotlighting several Supreme Court justices' lack of disclosure of high-cost gifts, expenses and business dealings — from luxury trips to real estate deals to private school tuition — has prompted many to call for ethics reform at the nation's highest court.

Among them is retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, a widely respected conservative (https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1049380749) judge who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit from 1991 to 2006.

(https://www.npr.org/2023/05/05/1174057179/supreme-court-congress-ethical-hearing)Luttig was a Supreme Court contender (https://www.npr.org/2005/07/06/4708442/possible-successors-to-chief-justice-rehnquist) under President George W. Bush and a longtime friend (https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2023/05/02/judge-luttig-warns-the-supreme-court-on-ethics-00094819) of several conservative justices. He famously sent more than 40 of his clerks — nicknamed "Luttigators" — into Supreme Court clerkships during his tenure, the vast majority of whom worked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.4

submitted a statement (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23794572-senate-judiciary-testimony-judge-l-michael-luttig) to the Senate Judiciary Committee for its hearing on Supreme Court ethics (https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/1173138576/supreme-court-ethics-hearing) last week.

(https://www.npr.org/2023/05/02/1173138576/supreme-court-ethics-hearing)In it, he wrote that Congress "indisputably has the power under the Constitution" to prescribe ethical standards for the Court,

if it were to fall short of what he described as "the housekeeping that is necessary to maintain a Republic."

"The Supreme Court should want to lead by the example that only it can set," he wrote.

"It should want to conduct itself in its non-judicial activities in all ways such that it is beyond reproach."

https://www.npr.org/2023/05/09/1174944642/supreme-court-ethics-michael-luttig-federal-judge


SCOTUS6 knows they are cheap political hacks and don't GAF about USA, democracy, or their own ethics.

They know they are above the law, untouchable

America is fucked and unfuckable.

[boutons_deux]

A new Supreme Court case seeks to legalize assault weapons in all 50 states

A case on the Court’s “shadow docket” could strike down state and local bans on AR-15s and similar weapons.

The plaintiffs, which include a gun shop owner and a gun rights group, claim the two statutes violate the Second Amendment.

Should the Supreme Court accept that argument and overturn these laws,

it would have sweeping implications for the entire country.

That decision would need to be followed throughout the entire nation —

which would most likely mean that neither any state nor the US Congress could ban assault rifles or high-capacity magazines.

And there is good reason to fear that this Court could, at the very least, decide to make semiautomatic assault rifles legal throughout the United States.

https://www.vox.com/politics/2023/5/9/23716863/supreme-court-assault-rifles-weapons-national-association-gun-rights-naperville-brett-kavanaugh

My bet is that SCOTUS6 perverts the 2nd Amendment further, ignores 2A textualism totally, and bans bans of AR15/AK7 military weapons.

[boutons_deux]

Neil Gorsuch is preparing his revenge

Republicans on the Supreme Court are, it appears,

planning to gut most of America’s regulatory agencies,

in what could be the most consequential re-write of the protective “deep state”

since it was largely created during the New Deal in the 1930s.




If they pull it off, they could destroy the ability of:

— the EPA to regulate pollutants,
— the USDA to keep our food supply safe,
— the FDA to oversee drugs going onto the market,
— OSHA to protect workers,
— the CPSC to keep dangerous toys and consumer products off the market,
— the FTC to regulate monopolies,
— the DOT to come up with highway and automobile safety standards,
— the ATF to regulate guns,
— the Interior Department to regulate drilling and mining on federal lands,
— the Forest Service to protect our woodlands and rivers,
— and the Department of Labor to protect workers’ rights.

Among other things on the rightwing billionaire wish-list:

virtually the entirety of America’s ability to protect its citizens from corporate predation

rests on what’s called the Chevron deference (more on that in a moment),

which the Court appears prepared to overturn with a case they just accepted (https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/) last week.

Vivek Ramaswamy says (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/05/us/politics/vivek-ramaswamy.html) he wants to eliminate the Department of Education “on day one” if he’s elected president.

If the Supreme Court has its way, he wouldn’t have to bother. It’ll become impotent.

The modern effort to destroy or at least neuter America’s protective agencies began when Ronald Reagan put

Anne Gorsuch in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In her first year heading the agency, there was a 79 percent decline (https://grist.org/article/griscom-reagan/) in enforcement cases,

and a 69 percent drop (https://grist.org/article/griscom-reagan/) in cases the EPA referred to the Justice Department for prosecution.

She pushed a 25 percent cut (https://grist.org/article/griscom-reagan/) in her own agency’s funding into Reagan’s first budget proposal.

It took Congress years to overturn her cuts to the Clean Air Act “on everything from automobiles to furniture manufacturers,”

She took a meataxe to President Carter’s renewable energy programs and “set solar back a decade” according (https://grist.org/article/griscom-reagan/) to Clapp.

Gorsuch finally resigned her office to avoid prosecution for what Newsweek described (https://www.newsweek.com/anne-gorsuch-new-bill-abolish-epa-551382) as

“a nasty scandal involving political manipulation,

[Super]fund mismanagement, perjury, and

destruction of subpoenaed documents,

among other things.”

Her son, Neil Gorsuch, was devastated by his mother’s resignation. In her memoir (https://www.waterstones.com/book/the-socialist-sixties/anne-e-gorsuch/diane-p-koenker/9780253009371) Are You Tough Enough? (https://www.amazon.com/Are-Tough-Enough-Anne-Burford/dp/007008940X/)

Now, it appears, her son is preparing his revenge.

https://www.rawstory.com/raw-investigates/neil-gorsuch

Personal revenge, retribution by SCOTUS, fucking America is fucked

========================

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Issue:

Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (https://casetext.com/case/chevron-inc-v-natural-resources-defense-council-inc-american-iron-and-steel-institute-v-natural-resources-defense-council-inc-ruckelshaus-v-natural-resources-defense-council-inc),

or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly

but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/

After destroying Chevron Deference, SCOTUS will move for coup de grace of the administrative state:

"non-delegation clause" has been violated and must be respected, killing the Executive branch

[Winehole23]

1659228763308138497

[Winehole23]

Congress -- which funds the Supreme Court and organized it by statute -- has no power to investigate SCOTUS, say Justice Thomas's billionaire pal's lawyers.

1661055169969242125

[boutons_deux]

The right wing scotus 6 consider, act like the supreme Court to be supreme among unequals.

No checks and balances apply

[Winehole23]

Rewriting the Clean Water Act

1661741268484116484

[Winehole23]

Bit of the surprise here, SCOTUS strikes down Alabama's racial gerrymander.

Allen v. Milligan

1666812147773624327

[Winehole23]

Knock on effects in LA and GA

1666814243466022914

[Winehole23]

I can think of one erstwhile poster here who argued that no right to vote exists in the US.

Looks like the 15th Amendment is still alive and well.


Article XV.

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[Winehole23]

1666812282943475717

[Winehole23]

1666827031517036544

[Winehole23]

at a minimum, this decision might be favorable to Dems' efforts to retake the House in 2024.

[Winehole23]

flipside is that staying cases against illegal maps probably gave the GOP their current House majority.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Roberts does actually seem to give a shit about objective reality to an extent. The GOP justices after and before not so much.

[Winehole23]

Roberts does actually seem to give a shit about objective reality to an extent. The GOP justices after and before not so much.Kavanaugh joined the libs, in part.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Kavanaugh joined the libs, in part.

That is encouraging.

[leemajors]

Kavanaugh joined the libs, in part.

That's twice in the last month or two now?

[Splits]

1666870977672642580

fucking cheating is the only way they can win

[ElNono]

1666827031517036544

I was going to ask how many times does the SCOTUS has to shoot itself in the foot to see what's going on.

[Winehole23]

That's twice in the last month or two now?yep



https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4020888-kavanaugh-joins-supreme-court-liberals-in-disagreeing-with-new-wetlands-test/

[Winehole23]

https://img.assets-d.propublica.org/v5/images/202306-Alito-Singer-Lead.JPG?crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fm=webp&fp-x=0.6729&fp-y=0.4513&h=600&q=75&w=800&
https://img.assets-d.propublica.org/v5/images/202306-Alito-Singer-Lead.JPG?crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fm=webp&fp-x=0.6729&fp-y=0.4513&h=600&q=75&w=800&
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FzHi13yWYAIY3o-.jpg


Such trips would be unheard of for the vast majority of federal workers, who are generally barred from taking even modest gifts.https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court

[Winehole23]

A: Why did a Sam Alito op-ed appear in the WSJ today?

[Winehole23]

concierge prebuttal

[Winehole23]

payment in kind perhaps, to a reliable unnamed source of the WSJ

[Winehole23]

1671498659714695173

[Winehole23]

defining habeas out of existence

1671894016127029254

[Winehole23]

Moore v. Harper

the potential reach of independent state legislature theory has just been drastically shortened.

1673701791807029249

[InRareForm]

Trump lost 2020 election

[InRareForm]

Thomas is a clown

[MultiTroll]

Getting super stalked? Don't look to the Supreme Court. They back the stalker. 7-2.

US Supreme Court sides with man who sent female musician barrage of unwanted messages (yahoo.com) (https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-sides-man-143840756.html)

Stalker Counterman had a history of making violent threats to women and was on supervised release from one such federal conviction during the two years he continuously messaged Whalen. He was found guilty in a 2017 trial of stalking Whalen and sentenced to 4-1/2 years in prison as he pursued his First Amendment appeal.


Counterman, citing mental illness and delusions, argued that his statements were never intended to be threatening and were thus protected speech.


The Colorado stalking law did not require proof of a speaker's subjective intent to intimidate. Rather, Counterman was convicted based on a showing that his messages would cause a "reasonable person" serious distress - known as an "objective" legal standard.


Counterman contended that prosecutors should be required to prove a speaker's specific intent to threaten before stripping offending speech of its constitutionally protected status.


Whalen has described the messages from Counterman, which came to her over a two-year span beginning in 2014, as life-threatening and life-altering. Whalen has said Counterman sent thousands of messages to her personal and public Facebook accounts, some of which suggested he had seen her in public.


She never responded to Counterman during this time and blocked his Facebook account at least four times, prompting him to continue messaging her from other platforms or through new Facebook accounts he created.


Among Counterman's communications to Whalen were messages that read: "Was that you in the white Jeep?" and "You're not being good for human relations. Die. Don't need you." Others used expletives.


Whalen said the messages eventually left her paralyzed with fear and anxiety, causing her to cancel shows and turn down career opportunities, and leading her to apply for a concealed handgun permit and sleep with a light on.


Whalen in 2016 discussed her concern about the messages with a family member, who alerted law enforcement. Colorado prosecutors later that year charged Counterman with stalking, which state law defines in part as communication that "would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress."

[Winehole23]

looks like the complaint behind the 303 Creative suit was fabricated.

Stewart was married to a woman and never submitted an email request to 303 Creative.


Long before the Supreme Court took up one of the last remaining cases it will decide this session—the 303 Creative v. Elenis case, concerning a Colorado web designer named Lorie Smith who refuses to make websites for same-sex weddings and seeks an exemption from anti-discrimination laws—there was a couple named Stewart and Mike. According to court filings from the plaintiff, Stewart contacted Smith in September 2016 about his wedding to Mike “early next year.” He wrote that they “would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website.” Stewart included his phone number, email address, and the URL of his own website—he was a designer too, the site showed.

This week, I decided to call Stewart and ask him about his inquiry.


The Supreme Court is expected to deliver its opinion in a case in which Stewart plays a minor role, a case that could be, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated by way of a question at oral argument in December, “the first time in the Court’s history … [that] a commercial business open to the public, serving the public, that it could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.” It took just a few minutes to reach him. I assumed at least some reporters over the years had contacted him about his website inquiry to 303 Creative—his contact information wasn’t redacted in the filing. But my call, he said, was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.”https://newrepublic.com/article/173987/mysterious-case-fake-gay-marriage-website-real-straight-man-supreme-court

[Winehole23]

Maybe it should not be a surprise, though, that this strange fake “request” popped up in a case in which the plaintiff’s main argument rested on the claim that someday, out there, a same-sex couple would want her to design a wedding website. The closest thing Smith had to an actual inquiry—the nonwedding of Stewart and Mike—arrived within 24 hours of her having filed a suit in which said inquiry would be potentially a helpful piece of supporting evidence

[Winehole23]

The Roberts court's originalism is a sham. Using the 14th Amendment as the foundation of colorblindness underscores it.

1674450691329253384

1674456065755185156

[Trainwreck2100]

Getting super stalked? Don't look to the Supreme Court. They back the stalker. 7-2.

US Supreme Court sides with man who sent female musician barrage of unwanted messages (yahoo.com) (https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-sides-man-143840756.html)

Stalker Counterman had a history of making violent threats to women and was on supervised release from one such federal conviction during the two years he continuously messaged Whalen. He was found guilty in a 2017 trial of stalking Whalen and sentenced to 4-1/2 years in prison as he pursued his First Amendment appeal.


Counterman, citing mental illness and delusions, argued that his statements were never intended to be threatening and were thus protected speech.


The Colorado stalking law did not require proof of a speaker's subjective intent to intimidate. Rather, Counterman was convicted based on a showing that his messages would cause a "reasonable person" serious distress - known as an "objective" legal standard.


Counterman contended that prosecutors should be required to prove a speaker's specific intent to threaten before stripping offending speech of its constitutionally protected status.


Whalen has described the messages from Counterman, which came to her over a two-year span beginning in 2014, as life-threatening and life-altering. Whalen has said Counterman sent thousands of messages to her personal and public Facebook accounts, some of which suggested he had seen her in public.


She never responded to Counterman during this time and blocked his Facebook account at least four times, prompting him to continue messaging her from other platforms or through new Facebook accounts he created.


Among Counterman's communications to Whalen were messages that read: "Was that you in the white Jeep?" and "You're not being good for human relations. Die. Don't need you." Others used expletives.


Whalen said the messages eventually left her paralyzed with fear and anxiety, causing her to cancel shows and turn down career opportunities, and leading her to apply for a concealed handgun permit and sleep with a light on.


Whalen in 2016 discussed her concern about the messages with a family member, who alerted law enforcement. Colorado prosecutors later that year charged Counterman with stalking, which state law defines in part as communication that "would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress."

the 2 in 7-2 were barrett and thomas so you can damn be sure this was a process argument not a case for stalking. Colorado prosecutors just didn't do their job and lost for it

[Winehole23]

303 Creative doesn't do weddings, has never designed a website for a wedding, and -- it would appear -- has never received a request to make a website for a wedding.

It's hard to see what the dispute is, or how this isn't an advisory opinion.

1674787677487648770

[Winehole23]

1674785088633176065

[Winehole23]

sounds about right

1674785783851655168

[InRareForm]

Pay off your student loans , no free lunch!!

[Winehole23]

Pay off your student loans , no free lunch!!*PPP loans trending online*

[Winehole23]

1674785975300669450

[Winehole23]

it's far past time to expand the court or limit its jurisdiction.


In practice, so few instances exist of jurisdictional stripping that [the] meaning and scope [of the exceptions clause] are open to debate. But it has happened. In the late 1860s, federal authorities jailed William McCardle, a newspaper editor, under provisions of the 1867 Military Reconstruction Act. McCardle sued for his freedom, citing the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867. Congress denied the justices jurisdiction in the matter, and the court conceded that it was powerless to act.

Writing several decades later, Justice Felix Frankfurter (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-2/classes-of-cases-and-controversies-at-the-supreme-court-doctrine-and-practice), an FDR appointee, noted that “Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred and it may do so even while a case is sub judice.” Chief Justice Warren Burger (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/405/1030/), whom President Richard Nixon placed on the bench, agreed, writing that Congress could pass simple legislation “limiting or prohibiting judicial review of its directives.”
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/07/03/dont-expand-the-supreme-court-shrink-it-00043863

[ducks]

Liberals going to want to stack the Supreme Court now
They ruled in favor of person wanting Sunday off, against loan forgiveness, graphic artist refusing same sex cakes, no consideration for race to attend college
Forgot this one Supreme Court justices rule state lawmakers do not have exclusive control over elections in key decision
The 6-3 ruling could prevent judges from overriding state rules like some did in 2020

[Winehole23]

total Calvinball, working backwards from desired results to decide cases without any proper dispute, for plaintiffs who shouldn't have standing.

1674815850031841283

[Trainwreck2100]

303 Creative doesn't do weddings, has never designed a website for a wedding, and -- it would appear -- has never received a request to make a website for a wedding.

It's hard to see what the dispute is, or how this isn't an advisory opinion.

1674787677487648770

they just found out that the guy the supposedly called 303 was a straight married to a female male who had no idea that he was the one listed on the complaint, you know probably because he's a straight male. The original complainant should be in prison for perjury

[SnakeBoy]

wHaTaBoUt *PPP loans trending online* :cry

fify

[SnakeBoy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fz4S26oaQAM1gk_?format=jpg&name=small

[ChumpDumper]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fz4S26oaQAM1gk_?format=jpg&name=small

That's not how your side does it.

[Trainwreck2100]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fz4S26oaQAM1gk_?format=jpg&name=small

Except for ppp loans, bailouts and bankruptcy that your side uses to literally not do that

[ducks]

Trump lost 2020 election

Take the machines out he wins
Nancy husband invest in them and cheats

[ducks]

*PPP loans trending online*

Government shut down business
Thus they were helping them out
No one forced people to rack up school bills except donkeys kept saying they would wipe the student loans out so they racked up the bills
Now they get to pay the pipper

[Winehole23]

In both the 303 Creative case and the student loan forgiveness cases. But they'll probably rediscover it in cases that aren't Republican priorities.

1674885653790879744

[Winehole23]

Government shut down business
Thus they were helping them out
No one forced people to rack up school bills except donkeys kept saying they would wipe the student loans out so they racked up the bills
Now they get to pay the pipperStates and localities did that, not Trump. But I sort of agree. It made sense to give out no recourse loans, just as it made sense to pause student loan payments.

Worth noting it wasn't the lenders who brought the case but Missouri, which wasn't hurt by the decision. Not sure how the state has standing here.

[Winehole23]

Netted out, the loan obligations of rich people can be zeroed out in an emergency, but don't you dare forgive the loans of students overpaying for a college education.

[Winehole23]

no facts, no dispute, totally hypothetical injury. there was no email request, no gay marriage requested nor was any state compelled "expression" at issue here. nothing happened to the plaintiff.

1674863999718940686

[Winehole23]

remember when SCOTUS made up facts to vindicate a proselytizing public school coach?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf

[ElNono]

I mean, traditionally the First Amendment did protect Klan members from legal consequences for spewing their vitriol.

The way this eventually works out is society shunning anybody that has a "Klan member" sign on their business.

What's problematic about this decision is that they should've avoided tiptoeing through the tulips, and simply asserted that public-accommodation laws run afoul of the First Amendment, which would've undone a half-a-century precedent on the matter.

So what's going to happen is likely they'll be having to do some gymnastics again soon, once we move from same-sex to another protected class, like race or national origin. These are the kind of self-inflicted damage like Dobbs, which they could've avoided by sticking with stare-decisis.

[Winehole23]

1678047545879334912

[boutons_deux]

Elie Mystal Rips Biden’s Hesitancy to ‘Politicize’ Supreme Court:

‘Happened So Long Ago That Joe Biden Probably Doesn’t Even Remember It’

for refusing to expand the Supreme Court over fear of politicizing it, arguing that “that horse left the barn” decades ago.

Biden expressed concern (https://www.mediaite.com/politics/the-court-is-political-msnbc-analyst-says-biden-trying-to-believe-scotus-apolitical-prevents-moving-forward/) over expanding the Supreme Court.

“If we start the process of trying to expand the court, we’re gonna politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not healthy,” he warned.

“That I can’t get back.”

that horse left the barn in 2000 in Bush v. Gore.

That was the fulcrum point for the politicization of the court,

so I don’t know what President Biden is talking about.

If he’s worried about never getting something back, no, you’re never getting it back.

... The question is, are you gonna clean it up?

Are you gonna do something about the toothpaste out of the tube

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/elie-mystal-rips-bidens-hesitancy-to-politicize-supreme-court-happened-so-long-ago-that-joe-biden-probably-doesnt-even-remember-it/

Fascist Capitalist oligarchy exploiting for decades the Dems' reliable fecklessness

America is fucked and unfuckable

[boutons_deux]

Where Clarence Thomas Entered an Elite Circle and Opened a Door to the Court


The exclusive Horatio Alger Association brought the justice access to wealthy members and unreported V.I.P. treatment. He, in turn, offered another kind of access.

On Oct. 15, 1991, Clarence Thomas secured his seat on the Supreme Court,

Within months, the new justice enjoyed a far-warmer acceptance to a second exclusive club: the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans,

named for the Gilded Age author whose rags-to-riches novels represented an aspirational version of Justice Thomas’s own bootstraps origin story.

If Justice Thomas’s life had unfolded as he had envisioned, his Horatio Alger induction might have been a celebration of his triumphs as a prosperous lawyer instead of a judge.

But as he tells it, after graduating from Yale Law School,

he was turned down by a series of top law firms, rejections he attributes to a perception that he was a token beneficiary of affirmative action.

At Horatio Alger, he moved into

While he has never held an official leadership position, in some ways he has become the association’s leading light.

He has granted it unusual access to the Supreme Court, where every year he presides over the group’s signature event

The organization, he added, “has allowed me to see my dreams come true.”

his Horatio Alger friends have welcomed him at their vacation retreats, arranged V.I.P. access to sporting events and invited him to their lavish parties.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/09/us/clarence-thomas-horatio-alger-association.html

[boutons_deux]

Pay off your student loans , no free lunch!!

Many $Bs of PPP given to 1000s of companies, some still laid off employees anyway, esp airlines

[Winehole23]

at no other level of the judiciary would this be considered at all appropriate.


An array of high rolling lawyers with cases before the Supreme Court paid money to one of Justice Clarence Thomas’s top aides through Venmo. The Guardian reports (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/12/clarence-thomas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court) that these lawyers have done everything from successfully arguing against affirmative action, to leading the charge to limit the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to, well, protect the environment.

These top lawyers appeared to be paying for exclusive access to a Christmas party hosted by the Supreme Court justice, according to the payment descriptions on Venmo. The former aide, Rajan Vasisht, received seven payments in November and December of 2019, The Guardian reports; each Venmo payment was listed with descriptors like “CT Christmas Party,” or “Thomas Christmas party.”


https://newrepublic.com/post/174259/top-lawyers-venmoed-clarence-thomas-aide-supreme-court

[Winehole23]

1679459039007186949

[Winehole23]

1680918173867016193

1680918295766073344

1680918407196078082

1680918544718917632

[Winehole23]

Alito thinks SCOTUS is and should be unaccountable.

1685003436834611200

[Winehole23]

"The Constitution doesn't say that I am not the king."

[Winehole23]

1685026090966753282

[Winehole23]

Zero fucks given to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

1685028741670436864

[Thread]

"The Constitution doesn't say that I am not the king."

See, when you lose cases, you just refuse to obey the dictate out of the SC..."Just ignore it. What can they do? Nothing. Rip your child out of your womb at your leisure, you're covered." When we lose cases and ignore the dictate you come and get us, drag us before a judge and read us a fuckin' riot act...make us get down on our hands and knees and beg to let us obey it now and ever more..."Fine, get up. If I ever see your White ass in here again, you're goin' away...10 years, suspended sentence, 100,000 dollars fine, cash. Now, git...after you pay the 100k. Out of my sight. It makes me sick to look at ya."

[Winehole23]

At the minimum, it's unseemly for judges to lie and mislead. Concealing large gifts from special interests out to be completely out of bounds

1687833699151159296

[Thread]

Where Clarence Thomas Entered an Elite Circle and Opened a Door to the Court


The exclusive Horatio Alger Association brought the justice access to wealthy members and unreported V.I.P. treatment. He, in turn, offered another kind of access.

On Oct. 15, 1991, Clarence Thomas secured his seat on the Supreme Court,

Within months, the new justice enjoyed a far-warmer acceptance to a second exclusive club: the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans,

named for the Gilded Age author whose rags-to-riches novels represented an aspirational version of Justice Thomas’s own bootstraps origin story.

If Justice Thomas’s life had unfolded as he had envisioned, his Horatio Alger induction might have been a celebration of his triumphs as a prosperous lawyer instead of a judge.

But as he tells it, after graduating from Yale Law School,

he was turned down by a series of top law firms, rejections he attributes to a perception that he was a token beneficiary of affirmative action.

At Horatio Alger, he moved into

While he has never held an official leadership position, in some ways he has become the association’s leading light.

He has granted it unusual access to the Supreme Court, where every year he presides over the group’s signature event

The organization, he added, “has allowed me to see my dreams come true.”

his Horatio Alger friends have welcomed him at their vacation retreats, arranged V.I.P. access to sporting events and invited him to their lavish parties.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/09/us/clarence-thomas-horatio-alger-association.html

You called down the thunder when you ran Bork off like that. It's never been the same since.

You've nobody to blame but yourselves.
Your regrets are your own.
I've nary sympathy for you.

[Winehole23]

Very unjudicial, to whine in the press via a party with a case before him, related to his own alleged unethical behavior.

1688194024035770369

[Thread]

Very unjudicial, to whine in the press via a party with a case before him, related to his own alleged unethical behavior.

1688194024035770369

We quit "judicial" long ago when you tarred & feathered Bork, frog-marched him out came dawn and high tech lynched him on the scaffolding.

You've nobody to blame but yourselves.
Your regrets are your own.
I've nary sympathy for you.

[Ef-man]

muh ghost guns going to SC

The Supreme Court is reinstating a regulation aimed at reining in the proliferation of ghost guns, firearms without serial numbers that have been turning up at crime scenes across the nation in increasing numbers.

The court on Tuesday voted 5-4 to put on hold a ruling from a federal judge in Texas that invalidated the Biden administration's regulation of ghost gun kits. The regulation will be in effect while the administration appeals the ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans — and potentially the Supreme Court.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas would have kept the regulation on hold during the appeals process.

The Justice Department had told the court that local law enforcement agencies seized more than 19,000 ghost guns at crime scenes in 2021, a more than tenfold increase in just five years.

[Winehole23]

still haven't hit the bottom yet

zero of these were disclosed


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F3InSCEXYAAGfYH?format=jpg&name=smallhttps://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-other-billionaires-sokol-huizenga-novelly-supreme-court

[spurraider21]

insanity

[Winehole23]

Can't imagine a judge collecting money directly from lawyers who plead before him would be considered ethical or proper at any other level of the judiciary.


Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/clarence-thomas), according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party.


The payments to Rajan Vasisht, who served as Thomas’s aide from July 2019 to July 2021, seem to underscore the close ties between Thomas, who is embroiled in ethics scandals following a series of revelations about his relationship with a wealthy billionaire donor, and certain senior Washington lawyers who argue cases and have other business in front of the justice.



Vasisht’s Venmo account – which was public prior to requesting comment for this article and is no longer – show that he received seven payments in November and December 2019 from lawyers who previously served as Thomas legal clerks. The amount of the payments is not disclosed, but the purpose of each payment (https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2023/07/11/CT_Venmo_3.png) is listed as either “Christmas party (https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2023/07/11/CT_Venmo_2.png)”, “Thomas Christmas Party (https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2023/07/11/CT_Venmo_1.png)”, “CT Christmas Party” or “CT Xmas party”, in an apparent reference to the justice’s initials.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jul/12/clarence-thomas-aide-venmo-payments-lawyers-supreme-court

[Winehole23]

like lightning, instantly.

1694377674083389753

[Winehole23]

self-enrichment through charities seems to be thematic in Trumplandia


Washington D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb is investigating judicial activist Leonard Leo and his network of nonprofit groups, according to a person with direct knowledge of the probe.

The scope of the investigation is unclear. But it comes after POLITICO reported (https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/01/dark-money-leonard-leo-judicial-activism-00084864) in March that one of Leo’s nonprofits — registered as a charity — paid his for-profit company tens of millions of dollars in the two years since he joined the company.



The watchdog complaint (https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23741538-campaign-for-accountability-irs-complaint-leonard-leo-nonprofits)alleges the total amount of money that flowed from Leo-aligned nonprofits to his for-profit firms was $73 million over six years beginning in 2016.

“There are questions as to whether Leo-affiliated nonprofits have diverted substantial portions of their income and assets, directly or indirectly, to the personal benefit of Leonard Leo,” read the Campaign for Accountability’s complaint.

“Such payments were generally listed as made in exchange for alleged consulting, research, public relations, or similar services. However CFA has reasonable questions about whether those alleged services were actually rendered at all or, if services were rendered, whether the payments made were substantially in excess of fair market value,” said the complaint, which covers the period between 2016 and 2020.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/22/d-c-attorney-general-is-probing-leonard-leos-network-00112331

[Winehole23]

top national judge confused about financial disclosure forms

1697255984555872353

[Winehole23]

Thomas gets properly flensed (https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/flense) in this article


This sniffing that a couple of innocent filing errors are just an occupational hazard may be necessary to ward off the more obvious and sensible conclusion to be drawn here, which is that Thomas applies one standard to himself and another to everyone else—and most specifically, to capital defendants who face execution because of errors committed by their attorneys, through no fault of their own, and often without their knowledge.https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/08/clarence-thomas-ethics-worst-supreme-court-votes.html

[Winehole23]

whoopsie, another belated, inadvertently omitted financial disclosure by the Thomas family.

1697701837476930008

[Winehole23]

Once upon a time, SC justices avoided opining publicly on controversies likely to end up before them, now they get out in front of them and do their politicking in the WSJ.

Sure looks like Alito is trying to protect Leonard Leo and the Supreme Court's corporate perks by asserting judicial supremacy.

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-09-04_complaint_from_senwhitehouseenclosure.pdf

[Winehole23]

No other justice listed an expense-paid vacation as a reimbursement, with the attendant concealment of its value.https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/09/clarence-thomas-ethics-republicans.html?via=rss_socialflow_twitter

[Winehole23]

lilypad to right wing grifting, tbh

1699510772324323425

[Thread]

lilypad to right wing grifting, tbh

1699510772324323425

The SC decision stands.

[boutons_deux]

lilypad to right wing grifting, tbh

1699510772324323425

SCOTUS6 have almost totally erased Kennedy's rulings

[boutons_deux]

SCOTUS6 ignoring Constitional checks and balances, no checks on SCOTUS, unbalanced, unchallengeable power

to annual any and all precedents and any and all legislative actions (VRA, corporations are people, ad nauseam)

Packed by billionaires, corrupt, illegit, SCOTUS6 gonna screw democracy.

Will probably defeat ISL 5-4, meaning 4 hacks would be pro-ISL,

or ISL might win 5-4, never know with these corrupt, lying pricks.

[boutons_deux]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F5Wu14caEAA54x6?format=jpg&name=900x900

[Winehole23]

lilypad to right wing grifting, tbh

1699510772324323425


“The problem is simple: Conservative litigators want the Supreme Court to expand a vision of religious liberty that abolishes the separation of church and state while granting Christians a freewheeling right to discriminate often with public funding.”

[Winehole23]

Thomas attended Koch fundraisers on a private plane and didn't disclose it.

The whole federal judiciary has higher standards for the conduct of judges than SCOTUS.


At the Supreme Court, justices decide what’s appropriate for themselves.

“I can’t imagine — it takes my breath away, frankly — that he would go to a Koch network event for donors,” said John E. Jones III, a retired federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush. Jones said that if he had gone to a Koch summit as a district court judge, “I’d have gotten a letter that would’ve commenced a disciplinary proceeding.”
“What you’re seeing is a slow creep toward unethical behavior. Do it if you can get away with it,” Jones said.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus

[Winehole23]

it's not really a conspiracy if it takes place in plain view (https://x.com/MaryPatFlynn1/status/1712052667449856467?s=20)

1712052667449856467

[Winehole23]

Posted in this thread for continuity with the previously reported.

Tax fraud is apparently nbd if you're a Supreme Court Justice.

1717282955435843832

[Winehole23]

If you vote right I guess you never have to pay for a plane ticket, a vacation, or repay a loan.

[Winehole23]

"Just a personal favor for a close personal friend, there's nothing written down, no quid pro quo."

[Thread]

If you vote right I guess you never have to pay for a plane ticket, a vacation, or repay a loan.

& 30 years ago you thought you'd beaten the game when you dragged Bork out into the public square and hung 'em high.

ha, ha.

[Winehole23]

Like I said, open corruption counts for nothing for y'all, so long as the crooks are on your side.

[Thread]

Like I said, open corruption counts for nothing for y'all, so long as the crooks are on your side.

Next time I make President don't try to cut his head off, blow him up, shoot him to death, or, crucify him and you'll stand a chance.

Now,

Let us proceed...

[Thread]

If you vote right I guess you never have to pay for a plane ticket, a vacation, or repay a loan.

Only the Nazi's in Ukraine get those freebies, sonny-boy + money for their Pensions while our Pensions (SS) will go out of business in 10 years.

[Winehole23]

Nobody tried to cut Trump's head off, or blow him up, or crucify him.

[Winehole23]

That's all purple prose.

[Thread]

That's all purple prose.

& I got it down to a science. I'd like to take it elsewhere and display it, but everywhere I go I've been thrown out. This is it!!!

[Winehole23]

"we promise (https://x.com/turiuriuri/status/1724143916956684731?s=20) to follow the rules, GFY"

1724143916956684731

[Thread]

"we promise (https://x.com/turiuriuri/status/1724143916956684731?s=20) to follow the rules, GFY"

1724143916956684731

Bottom line? Thomas is livin' still.

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1724178565271355393/Flx_yFZ5?format=jpg&name=small

[Thread]

https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1724178565271355393/Flx_yFZ5?format=jpg&name=small

"Nonbinding" That's it & that's all.
---
------
---------
Next time, Winester; have your crew come hard, else stay on the fuckin' porch with the children & Hillary Clinton.

[Winehole23]

lol the Thomases living beyond their means and complaining about stingy federal pay

1736750152063340982

[Winehole23]

reminds me, who paid off Kavanaugh's credit cards and club fees?

1736777762185351579

[Winehole23]

1735741870817395156

[Winehole23]

lol sensitivity blocking, did a rich person get hurt feelings over this?

[Winehole23]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GBpE6QjWwAAVI2p?format=jpg&name=small

[Winehole23]

Rules and disclosure are for little people, not for the unelected mandarins who get to say what the rules are.

1791053504942907840

[Thread]

Rules and disclosure are for little people, not for the unelected mandarins who get to say what the rules are.

1791053504942907840

You showed us the way here, Winester. You've only yourselves to blame.

[Spurs Homer]

Nazi Alito and his insurrectionist wife just doing nazi things .... nothing to see here...

[Thread]

Nazi Alito and his insurrectionist wife just doing nazi things .... nothing to see here...

...cept Biden doin' the same thing for the millions of Nazi's in Ukraine who get full ride health insurance from Amierica/Americans.

Let us proceed...

[Winehole23]

It's like bible day camp for federal judges, sponsored by far right special interests

1797803857076191735

[Thread]

It's like bible day camp for federal judges, sponsored by far right special interests

1797803857076191735

Methinks it ain't ever gonna get better in your lifetime, son.

[Winehole23]

1798738498201202993

[Thread]

^^^^^^^^^

You shouldn't run off that Bork fellow.

Oh, the tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

tee, hee.

[Winehole23]

Justice Thomas: THEY DON'T PAY ME ENOUGH!

[Winehole23]

1654325303219453952

[Thread]

Justice Thomas: THEY DON'T PAY ME ENOUGH!




You shouldn't a run off that Bork fellow.

Oh, the tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

tee, hee.

[Winehole23]

The problem is simple: Conservative litigators want the Supreme Court to expand a vision of religious liberty that abolishes the separation of church and state while granting Christians a freewheeling right to discriminate often with public funding.”

[Thread]

[[[The problem is simple: Conservative litigators want the Supreme Court to expand a vision of religious liberty that abolishes the separation of church and state while granting Christians a freewheeling right to discriminate often with public funding.”]]]

Your problem remains that you feel asleep with RBG and porked the pooch.

Trump did that.

[Winehole23]

1799258168725274912

[Thread]

1799258168725274912


You chased Bork off and the whole time it was Thomas.

I'll be damned.

[Winehole23]

Thurgood Marshall was appointed in 1967.

SCOTUS is generally has been conservative, even a retrograde institution.

1799923504827003160