Thank you Joyce. We cannot give up, no matter how high the hurdles seem. I believe women will lift Biden to victory, and hopefully, give Dems the wins they need to win the House and d Senate. Then, we can clean house!!
*Legislation* to abolish a SCOTUS decision? Really? Citizens United *could* be overturned by the SCOTUS (hah!), and there are ways to undermine it legislatively, but they'll take time, careful crafting, and (of course) enough votes.
Yes - If Congress codifies it (and the ERA and Womens’ Reproductive Rights and the full Voting Rights Act) as law, it will then be safe from future SCOTUS rulings or Executive Orders.
You're missing my point. The OP wanted the bill on President Biden's desk when he starts his 2nd term in January. This is 100% unrealistic and shows a serious ignorance of how SCOTUS decisions can be, in effect, nullified.
It is time for women and men to March in Washington on Labor Day in support of Reproductive Rights! Who’s in? Where are the appropriate organizations? Rally the Nation?
Stand up for Choice......April 25,2004...Washington DC........I was a man marching that day with thousands......Twenty years later......do it again with 10's of thousands filling the streets
Ira - I live in New Mexico and can't be there if there were to be a march, however I would be happy to make a monetary contribution to such a cause if it were established.
The following are extracts from the Code of Conduct that binds all federal judges in the U.S. except those on the Supreme Court, which has refused to adopt the Code.
Samuel Alito has crossed the line on the prohibitions below, with emphasis in Canon 5 on his overt endorsement of Donald Trump and his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
Code of Conduct for United States Judges:
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.
C. Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity A. General Prohibitions. A judge should not: (1) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office;
28 US Code §455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
Re Marlene’s question: wouldn’t a class action make its way to the Supreme Court?
Double down on Joyce: VOTE! We’re supporting Democratic candidates for Congress who have a chance of winning, not so much those who hold secure seats or the “long-shots”, but those in close, winnable races.
But we also need to rid ourselves of spineless Democrats who simply won't "rock the boat", such as Senator (aptly named) Dick Durbin. Just because he knows the votes aren't there to impeach both Alito and Thomas, public hearings would go a long way toward educating the voting public of the damage being done by these partisan hacks on OUR Supreme Court. Just as the NAZI's are doing with their absurd impeachment hearings, the loud noise attracts attention, and we need to take the attention back. So the likes of Durbin need to be put out to pasture, replaced by firebrands like Rep Crockett, who WILL grab the national attention. It's time we get LOUD!!
Seeing Rep Crockett's name made me laugh - I love her. She would definitely get things done. She has enough cojones to make up for all the wimps in the senate.
The race to replace Ken Buck with not the nasty dweeb Greg Lopez (kicked his pregnant wife and then another issue 3 years ago) followed by the execrable Lauren Boebert with Trisha Clavarese is very winnable.
If the "Democratic" male candidates in the primary would get out of the way. The twice rejected mentally unstable backed by republicans Ike mccorkle and John Pandora need to leave.
My mail program is really smart: all the emails I get from John Padora are automatically classified as junk. Thank you for enlightening me about who he is.
I think he's a decent guy. But during the election of candidates he shared the Mccorkle lie that Calvarese wasn't an eligible candidate for the office. Each of his plugs for his candidacy were good, responsible pitches. Unlike Mccorkle, who always appeared in his marine uniform and seemed really angry.
And we have three candidates running for the democratic spot so diluting the vote. They should both get out.
The spreading of the "unqualified" rumor disqualifies both of them. It needed to be brought up with the nominating certification body, and wasn't.
Logically, you are completely correct but, as we've learned to our occasional sorrow, the law as currently practiced isn't always logical. I'd certainly participate in crowdfunding such a suit, but there'd need to be a couple of pretty sharp constitutional lawyers leading the way.
The answer to all dilemmas seems to be to “vote.” How does that help me in completely blood red SC where my vote is an exercise in futility EVERY ELECTION and the state is completely ignored as a consideration in 2024. SCOTUS just rejected an electoral college map that would have given the State the two districts it needs to fairly represent Blacks.
We have seven districts, need 8 to represent the state fairly, think Rep Jim Clyburn our national treasure. And Biden chose SC to go first as his lucky charm this year. It worked somehow in 2020 by means I don’t understand. I would like to turn just one red vote blue. Had a pleasant debate this pm with a high school colleague and dear friend who is very Catholic, engaged in promoting Trump and working as a poll worker this year because of one issue; ABORTION IS AGAINST HER RELIGIOUS TENANTS, natural birth control and abstinence are very workable in her experience. By some measure of disinformation, she considers Biden a bad example of Catholicism and religion on this issue alone.
Lack of information on any aspect of Project 2025; how is media not getting through to this classic mother of five?
She has never heard anything, laughed when I mentioned “dictator for life” and yet she is intelligent, involved in the community, etc. I just don’t understand. I have six months or less to change her mind but seems to hang on this one issue and I am out of my league discussing religion. Had no inclusion in any religion growing up nor since and for all the good it does, I’ll stick with my Agnostic and separation of church and state. What has religion done for Israel and Gaza as another example? I am elderly with disabilities, have a male caretaker who is a delightful Black pastor who readily pops into sermons to which I listen patiently and refrain from telling him there are 30,000 interpretations of the Bible. I suppose we all have our challenges at present. I just yearn for one win. The BIG ONE 2024 🏆would be nice but fairly sure, no matter the indictments, a BIDEN 🌊🌊🌊 will have to occur in more literate, blue by history states.
Look at it this way. You have at least a shot at making a difference. Ironically, I live in the bluest corner of a deep blue state with 84% turnout in 2020. But even if everyone in the state suddenly saw the light it would not make a damn bit of difference. Our electoral vote is what it is, and "getting out the vote" here won't change it.
The answer is what I am calling Getting Out the Word--which can be done from afar or over coffee. With your friend: learn the talking points of Project 2025. As questions about the topic with curiosity, not challenge.
"Cutting back the FDA would certainly save money. Would you feel comfortable about the safety of your food and drugs if it was limited in what it could do? I'd be nervous about all those reports of food poisoning. What if workers cut back on sanitation precautions because it saved the owners money?"
That kind of thing.
With your Catholic friend, say "I saw an article about the 30 years war. Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other by the millions over theology. If Christian Nationalists come into power, are you comfortable that they wouldn't insist on THEIR beliefs where the Evangelicals disagreed with Catholics? Who would decide which was right?
The problem is there is no court he isn't higher than. Where would you sue? I think the only way to fight MAGA is with the same boldness, disregard and viciousness as MAGA treats law, order, the Constitution, and everyone not them. I don't like it. But I do not see any other way to confront this level of contempt and lawlessness.
Steve, that's amazing and I am guessing every one of the justices and judges in the feeral system know it, yet they flout it as though somehow it doesn't pertain to them. There should be real consequences, not impeachment which is ridiculous because it will never get someone convicted or removed. Maybe a rule that a justice must step aside for a year if he/she violates the law or be sent to a lower court for a time period based on the gravity of the act. Something must be done to hold people in power accountable. They have been running wild for too long. It's time!
Ruth, if the house flips and the senate gets a bit better majority, so they can do in the filibuster as currently practiced, and tfg loses bigly, it should be possible to oust them through impeachment. I am hoping and praying that Colin Allred defeats Ted Cruz, which will help somewhat in the senate. I couldn't agree with you more about holding the people in power accountable.
Yes of course. But nothing happens. She is is in charge and will not move. Just protecting her master. What is doing biden? Zilch. Something is definitely damn rotten in this country. And american governments want to tell other “democracies” what to do? Lol. America has no credibility anymore. It has become corrupt to the core. With all the protections surrounding von trump I fear he will be appointed next president. The last one. Afterwards they will name themselves “new messiah” or something even more deranged. What a mess!
How is it that those appearing for prosecutors in the 2020 election and Trump criminal matters have not sought the recusal of Thomas and Alito? On the other side of the Pacific (or the Atlantic, for that matter) those would be obvious applications to make, and highly likely to succeed.
L.D., the question I have asked without adequate response is why is the Supreme Court not considered part of the court system and required to follow the rules everyone else in the system must follow? I remember when I was a government worker, I was told on day 1 there were certain things I could not do and one of them was to wear or carry anything that supported a particular candidate. I understood that because on work time, we were supposed to be impartial. Our judges and justices should be held at least to that basic standard, justices even higher standards since their rulings impact so many people.
Art. III of Constitution says "judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court" and other lower courts as Congress decides. "Shall be vested" is pretty exclusive and specific language. It does go on to say both SCOTUS and other judges shall hold office "during good Behavior" -- and I have wondered why we don't invoke THAT phrase, since they have no personal honor or integrity apparently. And I can certainly define corruption and aiding traitors as Bad Bahavior. (Interestingly, Art. III also defines treason. 14th Amendment speaks instead of "insurrection or rebellion: or giving "aid or comfort" to our enemies, the "aid and comfort" part of the definition of treason. )
I was a federal court employee for nearly 20 years and was very clear on the things I could and could not do re: political stuff, as were all the judges at my court, and we followed that stricture. There is an arrogance to these false gods who have been allowed to enjoy the benefit of every doubt in the world until now it becomes so apparent that they did not deserve it. They are worse than the criminal defendants they pass judgment on.
Reader, you are right on this one. I don't understand how We the People have let so much illegal behavior pass as acceptable. Justice Alito, for example is out of control. He cares nothing for the results of his decisions because he thinks like so many pseudo-christians that he has god's ear and is following god's will which means, as a toddler-men, he is doing what he wants and hurting as manypeople as possible with impunity. He only helps the ones he thinks will help him and the folks he likes. No judge or justice should sit on any court with that kind of personality. Then, there's Thomas and his bribery and having been purchased and Gorsuch and his gifts from "just friends." Amy Barrett, raised in a kind of cult sees everything as a kind of religious war but love, caring, kindness are not among the precepts she follows. Roberts, who knows what he is besides a racist misogynist, both evident before he was ever nominated to the court. The Federalist Society knew exactly what they were getting with Roberts. I am guessing Bush did too. Kavanaugh is also a misogynist who thought he could do whatever he wanted to women, as long as he was drunk and could use that as an excuse. OMG, our highest court conservatives are not the cream of the crop; they are appalling human beings ruling against people they don't know or care about in the name of some kind of religious insanity they can't even name, but they know it when they see it. Ugh!!
All I can say is that since 6-16-15 when the orange peel came down the golden escalator from his heaven, we have been distracted by the outrageousness and horrendous arrogance and criminality of a known sociopath. And why would anyone be surprised? That is what sociopaths do, create chaos and stand back enjoying the spectacle. I do have a bias against christianity also, even though I was raised with the good parts of that particular religion; what I see throughout the country by avowed "christians" is nothing I recognize as good and is only interested in getting more for themselves and taking away from others, which has completely driven me away from any interest in being forgiving of these "forgiven" hypocrites.
Ruth Sheets: Sorry for the delay in responding, which I am posting here and after my initial comment. You raised an excellent question. Thanks!
CORRECTION AND UPDATE FROM L.D.Michaels
I have a correction to make as a result of my research in following up on Ruth Sheets' very good question: " [W]hy is the Supreme Court not considered part of the court system and required to follow the rules everyone else in the system must follow?"
In researching her question, I discovered that on November 13, 2023, the Supreme Court promulgated a timely "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" that was signed by each Justice of the Supreme Court and which was prefaced with a "Statement of the Court Regarding the Code of Conduct".
As we all know, the events leading up to the issuance of this code of conduct were the string of scandalous disclosures of luxury trips, gifts, payments and other things of value received by Clarence Thomas from his billionaire friends which Thomas failed to report, claiming they were merely "hospitalities" that did not need to be reported. Thomas' monetization of his position on the Supreme Court still remains an open sore in the reputation of the Supreme Court, on whose bench he still surprisingly sits.
The "Statement of the Court" in essence, is a self-serving proclamation that they have always been dutiful in observing the same code of conduct binding all other federal judges and also in observing additional judicial ethical standards. It goes on to state that the mere absence of a written Code of Conduct "has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct".
I would like to emphasize that while making the statement that this Code " largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct", the Supreme Court is formally acknowledging that they are retroactively validating that this Code applied to the conduct of the Justices prior to November 13, 2023.
My point on this issue is that the exact same prohibition cited above in Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States States Judges has been included in the "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: "A Justice should not 2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office". Therefore, the Supreme Court is acknowledging that this prohibition was in full force and effect and applied to Samuel Alito's flag waving overt endorsement of Donald Trump and his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Therefore, Alito cannot now contend that this provision only applied to the lower court federal judges and not to him.
Before I note one very disturbing position taken by the Justices in their Commentary on the "Statement of the Court", I would like to include a few relevant provisions in the Court's codification of its code of conduct:
->CANON 1: A."A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary"
CANON 2 B: " A Justice should not allow family, social, political, financial or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment"
CANON 3 A: " A Justice should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism".
CANON 3 B: DISQUALIFICATION (2) "A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. Such instances include, and are not limited to, those in which (a) The Justice has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;"
What is then truly disturbing is a follow-up series of commentaries, one of which, by deploying gobs of sophistry and hypocrisy and contrary to CANON 3's requirement of disqualification, asserts that whatever need there may be for a justice to disqualify or recuse himself or herself is outweighed by the need of the majority to issue their intended decision. Their twisted and distorted rationale places the need to render the decision they want to reach above the need to act honorably and ethically. One example provided of why a Justice should not recuse himself includes the fact that: one Justice recusing himself is "effectively the same as casting a vote against the petitioner". Another example furnished is that "[T]he absence of one Justice risks the affirmance of a lower court decision by an unevenly divided Court". The rest of their sophistry may be found in 4 long paragraphs in the above link.
And let's not forget, that it was Justice Thomas who did not recuse himself and provided the 5th needed vote to suspend the Jan.6 proceeding below pending the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's immunity appeal. And let's not also forget, that neither Thomas nor Alito recused themselves on Trump's immunity appeal and on the Colorado elections case appeal.
It seems clear that, regardless of their own Code of Conduct, the right-wing majority on the Court is going to continue to fabricate rationalizations, no matter how distorted they may be and no matter how flagrantly biased the Justices may be, as to why they are not recusing themselves.
L.D. Thank you for the information. I had read it before, but somehow the hypocrisy embedded escaped me then. Essentially, the "code" has left open the door to justices doing whatever they wish if they think it can be excused by claiming that justice is critical to the ruling. WHAT! The whole point is recusing is essential so the justice does not impact a case he/she should not be ruling on due to partisan or other activity. I guess they were hoping people wouldn't notice that part as I did not previously. Johnny Roberts knew what he was doing to protect the two cons who were acting so badly and protecting his majority. That should be a reason to kick a justice off the bench, but alas, we have no effective means to do that, so they go on and day after day we find out a new action that jeopardizes the integrity of the Supreme Court. That is shameful at least, criminal in reality, or should be.
I have a correction to make as a result of my research in following up on Ruth Sheets' very good question: " [W]hy is the Supreme Court not considered part of the court system and required to follow the rules everyone else in the system must follow?"
In researching her question, I discovered that on November 13, 2023, the Supreme Court promulgated a timely "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" that was signed by each Justice of the Supreme Court and which was prefaced with a "Statement of the Court Regarding the Code of Conduct".
As we all know, the events leading up to the issuance of this code of conduct were the string of scandalous disclosures of luxury trips, gifts, payments and other things of value received by Clarence Thomas from his billionaire friends which Thomas failed to report, claiming they were merely "hospitalities" that did not need to be reported. Thomas' monetization of his position on the Supreme Court still remains an open sore in the reputation of the Supreme Court, on whose bench he still surprisingly sits.
The "Statement of the Court" in essence, is a self-serving proclamation that they have always been dutiful in observing the same code of conduct binding all other federal judges and also in observing additional judicial ethical standards. It goes on to state that the mere absence of a written Code of Conduct "has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct".
I would like to emphasize that while making the statement that this Code " largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct", the Supreme Court is formally acknowledging that they are retroactively validating that this Code applied to the conduct of the Justices prior to November 13, 2023.
My point on this issue is that the exact same prohibition cited above in Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States States Judges has been included in the "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: "A Justice should not 2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office". Therefore, the Supreme Court is acknowledging that this prohibition was in full force and effect and applied to Samuel Alito's flag waving overt endorsement of Donald Trump and his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Therefore, Alito cannot now contend that this provision only applied to the lower court federal judges and not to him.
Before I note one very disturbing position taken by the Justices in their Commentary on the "Statement of the Court", I would like to include a few relevant provisions in the Court's codification of its code of conduct:
->CANON 1: A."A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary"
CANON 2 B: " A Justice should not allow family, social, political, financial or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment"
CANON 3 A: " A Justice should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism".
CANON 3 B: DISQUALIFICATION (2) "A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. Such instances include, and are not limited to, those in which (a) The Justice has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;"
What is then truly disturbing is a follow-up series of commentaries, one of which, by deploying gobs of sophistry and hypocrisy and contrary to CANON 3's requirement of disqualification, asserts that whatever need there may be for a justice to disqualify or recuse himself or herself is outweighed by the need of the majority to issue their intended decision. Their twisted and distorted rationale places the need to render the decision they want to reach above the need to act honorably and ethically. One example provided of why a Justice should not recuse himself includes the fact that: one Justice recusing himself is "effectively the same as casting a vote against the petitioner". Another example furnished is that "[T]he absence of one Justice risks the affirmance of a lower court decision by an unevenly divided Court". The rest of their sophistry may be found in 4 long paragraphs in the above link.
And let's not forget, that it was Justice Thomas who did not recuse himself and provided the 5th needed vote to suspend the Jan.6 proceeding below pending the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's immunity appeal. And let's not also forget, that neither Thomas nor Alito recused themselves on Trump's immunity appeal and on the Colorado elections case appeal.
It seems clear that, regardless of their own Code of Conduct, the right-wing majority on the Court is going to continue to fabricate rationalizations, no matter how distorted they may be and no matter how flagrantly biased the Justices may be, as to why they are not recusing themselves.
Which code is purely voluntary for them, unlike the code of conduct that all of us who worked in the federal court system (including judges to a greater degree with the intricate forms they had to update yearly with the particulars of their financial situations and submit to the Judicial Council or the Administrative Office of the US Courts; we employees just had to sign a document attesting under penalty of perjury that we were not doing forbidden political things) were drilled on every.single.year. Thank you, LD, for this. If it's okay with you, I will print it out for future use.
ALITO DELIBERATELY SUPPORTS THE BIG LIE FOR POLITICAL MOTIVES. There is an aspect of Alito's flag-flying that hasn't received much comment: He has deliberately supported and adopted what he knows to be a lie: the claim that Trump won in 2020 but was robbed of victory by election fraud.
First, we can safely say that, notwithstanding Alito's claim that his wife was responsible for flying the insurrectionists' flag, it represents his views as well as hers. If my wife and I were to disagree on an important political issue, neither of us would apply a bumper sticker or plant a yard sign or fly a flag that represented one of our views, but not the other's. Since we can assume a Supreme Court just is not easily cowed by his spouse, the upside down flag plainly represented his view, not just his wife's.
Second, since Justice Alito is not a total ****ing moron, he knows perfectly well that the 2020 election was NOT stolen. There was no steal to stop, and Alito knows this full well. We can safely presume he is aware, for example, that in 60 lawsuits, Trump and his supporters failed to present an iota of meaningful evidence of election fraud (a fact of which the Supreme Court itself could take judicial notice) and (2) he is perfectly aware that Trump's own White House officials confirmed there was no evidence of meaningful election fraud. Which is to say, no one with any kind of legal mind would believe Trump's stolen election lie.
This means that Alito, although fully aware that the "Stop the Steal" flag represented a giant lie, deliberately chose to express support for the lie and to express solidarity with those who embraced the lie.
Justice Alito has staked out the same role for himself as the "conservative" judges occupied in the period of Germany's pre-Nazi, democratic Weimar Republic, a role of undermining democracy and pandering to fascist assassins. The right-wing justices of Weimar Germany helped pave the way for the Nazi Party to achieve power.
It is not a stretch to conclude that Justice Alito is a supporter of American fascism, and similarly seeks to assist American's would-be fascist ruler, Donald Trump, to achieve power.
Exactly. Alito bought the coup hook, line, and sinker on that fishing trip and others with the (anti)American oligarchs. He is all in to overthrow our government.
The Movie JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG highlights how the judiciary system under Hitler crumbled as leading jurists succumbed to the dictates of Hitler. Creep, creep, creep, crap!
When you have justices such as Alito and Thomas and judges like Cannon, as they say in the Middle East, the camel’s nose is under the tent.
Trump, who has spent (other people’s $$$) over $150,000,000 to circumvent the judicial system’s indictment/trial system, has made crystal clear his opinion of the Constitution and the sanctity of the Department of Justice.
I recently re-watched JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG. Don’t think that it can’t happen here. IT IS HAPPENING!
and yet their cousins, the alpaca, is among the most serene of creatures. But I am definitely swiping the phrase! Thx. (What are you writing these days?)
Suzc i’m posting diverse comments on US politics, economy, Gaza, Ukraine and Putin, China, and 1984. Just finished 40 stories for Storyworth about aspects of my life. At 90 I love to keep my mind active. You can follow me on Joyce’s, Heathers’, and Jim Fallows’ Substacks as well as perhaps 7 commentaries on NYT weekly.
Agree 100%. And remember the Robert’s canard that judges should only call balls and strikes? As is always the case with the Reich Party that was only intended for the other side. Stare decisis for thee but not for me
This may be just whistling into the wind but I think we need a new symbol that represents the desire for judicial reform and I suggest we make it a flag that we carry in marches and protests. I think the design might incorporate the traditional picture of Lady Justice (or Themis for those who take a longer view) wearing a blindfold and holding the scales. I’m not a graphic designer or I’d draw up a flag design myself. Any takers? We could send the first one to Joyce.
Personally, I think Lady Justice should be looking at the Supreme Court building ,with tears streaming down her face. No blindfold, she is fully aware of the travesty taking place, and, is expressing her disappointed!
Yes! This! I still remember the tv commercial years ago (I think about littering) of a Native American chief with a tear on his cheek. Very powerful. Maybe just the bust of lady justice without the blindfold and with tears.
I think we should also reclaim the American Flag -- every time I see it these days I think it must be flown by a Trumper. What a sad state of affairs. How can we reclaim it in the same way the LGBTQ community reclaimed the word 'queer' and removed the insult and made it a term of pride?
I’ve always flown a flag outside my home and I’m a Democrat who strongly supports left leaning ideals. I also have campaign yard signs for many months leading up to elections and there is no doubt I support Democrats and Democrat led legislation - Do both and reclaim that flag.
I have an American flag magnet to the right of my back license plate, and a Biden magnet to the left of my license plate. They complement each other perfectly.
And to all of you writing about reclaiming the flag, I just remembered I took mine down from the porch in advance of a noreaster and then had my shoulder replaced in January. I just put it back up now! Thanks for the reminder! And the healing shoulder!
Me too. I saw one flying off a car the other day, a little thing, not the giant ones on the pickemup trucks, and had to remind myself Memorial Day weekend is coming. Maybe that was it.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Most of the time I see other signs of the trump view, like the car in my neighborhood that has a huge "go brandon" decal on the back window, or the guy who flies the "trump train" flag under his American flag. But, in reading other replies, I will try to make fewer assumptions.
I'll bet it does. Texas wants to lead the way on the road to fascism.
From “Freedom and Government” an essay by Bertrand Russell
"The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity.
The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other."
I live in Tucson too. Tucson is blue, and Pima County is blue. I don't share your feelings. We live in an area that is quite diverse. Even driving around town, I don't see a lot of trump messaging. I wonder if you might be located in a gated community or planned community such as Saddlebrook or Green Valley? Just curious why we might see things differently.
I grew up Washington state, I still own 5 acres of trees with a small cabin and huge garage and my own well. I spent a career teaching in LA.
I know some folks who have been here for years.
Just my feelings. I've spent my life in extremely blue areas.
I'm not used to living in a place where I can walk into a gun store and buy a pistol and a box of ammo in less than an hour. I can then shove said pistol in my pocket thereby concealing it, all without a permit.
Just fly it. And if you are concerned that people will think you’re a Trump fan, put out some yard signs such as the “Love is Love” and other messages of equality and compassion I have seen around. I live in Maine and it’s very common to fly the American flag, maybe because most people have large lots or acreage and there’s plenty of room for a flagpole.
Yes Sioux, there is a fabulous designer on this site and I’m trying to recall his name. I’m going to look up some of the things he has done and recommend this to him.
Some people, mostly white men (because of their privilege), get to positions of power and begin to believe that they are special, that their wants and needs are superior to others, and that they don't have to listen to anyone else's viewpoint. They no longer doubt what they say or believe, and they dismiss contrary views. They aren't wise and they lose any capacity to be humble. When that person is also a religious "true believer" the outcomes are worse because they believe they have God on their side. Joyce is right, we have to vote, up and down the ballot. It'll take time and it's difficult to wait, but we can't give up.
It has to reach beyond this small group? How can it happen when even the press won't cover it? How? We are not big enough. Most people believe we are in a recession, that Biden is responsible for everything bad.
Thank YOU for your incredibly hard work - day after day and late into the night - providing such important and knowledgeable commentary. It motivates us all to keep believing and working for democracy. In gratitude!!
This coming Memorial Day is especially poignant for me under the present circumstances for the country. A time I ask you to join with me and other former and active "losers and suckers" especially now, to remember those of us who gave that last full measure of devotion to the very simple but fragile ideal of being able to live your life as you see fit. A devotion to an ideal that escaped a once Commander-in-Chief as he stood over the grave of the son of his chief of staff at Arlington on a past Memorial Day and had the effrontery to say, "I don't get it. What was in it for them ?" He'll never "get it." But it's what was in it for them and is now for most of us that we must preserve come November. They're counting on us.
"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. We shall remember them. " From "For the Fallen," Laurence Binyon
I am a Navy veteran myself from the Vietnam era and support this devotion to the country and its traditions wholeheartedly and will be participating in a Memorial Day service honoring those who gave their last full measure of devotion for freedom. Thank you, Dale.
I am in a DNC veterans/military family discussion group. Vietnam combat veteran, 1966-67. Fred Wellman is in the group. https://fpwellman.substack.com/ Has a TV program Friday nights. Thousands of followers.
Looking to spread the word? 4 million people on Facebook are veterans or active duty members. 12.5 million people on Facebook are family members of a veteran or an active duty member. 242 million people on Facebook are friends with one or more veterans or active duty members.
Go to those sites and say the magic words "not suckers or losers" and see what happens.
Thank you for this information. Your comment actually gives readers a viable tool to reach a crucial demographic to remind them which political party supports veterans. Following your suggestion would have a larger impact than say writing to Dick Durbin to have hearings on Alito - which he will not do. Again thank you.
Thank you for your service Dale. My now deceased husband was a psychologist in Vietnam. I am so proud of him for his service even while he didn’t believe it was a just war. He served and as a psychologist in a medical unit, he was a sitting duck because he wasn’t allowed to have weapons. He served while heel spurs received deferments. I am broken when I read comments by current, and former senior officers on Trump’s staff and in the Pentagon, who suffered his verbal abuse. We simply must defeat him, so he never appears again. I know the military has traditionally been conservative. I’m hoping the strong comments by serving and now retired senior officers is sending a message to defend our constitution because “We don’t serve a person, we serve our constitution and our country.” I know it’s difficult for folks to be raised as conservative Republicans in the right way not the right wing Christian nationalist evangelical MAGA mode, to think about voting for Biden because it means voting for a party they have not supported. I’m telling them to just do it once. Then they can go back to reforming what is left of the Republican Party. And Trump has driven it off the cliff in a bus: but you can’t really tell folks that they have to “make a life time change.“ So I simply tell them to just vote Blue once to vote against Trump.
Alito and Thomas are shameless as they absolutely know that they should recuse themselves. They are supposed to be self-governing with Roberts as the chief Justice. He has his head in the sand.
Who gets the blame for the flag at the beach house?
Is it the gardener, the maid or another disgruntled
neighbor?
They both should just resign. They are both guilty of taking bribes (vacations, trios, airline flights , motor
Home) as well as not being impartial. They don’t even try to hide their impartiality.
Usually I would say they are doing things for lowercased don, but IMO it’s for the Republicans, not just elected officials but all of them. It’s to rile them all up. The fact they call themselves Christians is still crazy as they don’t walk the walk or talk the talk of any true Christian. November seems a long time away. When Democrats overtake the don and his minions, they an be indicted. Then we can pass new term limits and have a proctor to oversee their actions.
Everyday there has been something else to 😡.
Thank you for teaching and leading us onward. Remember that every single vote counts.
Yes, let’s vote. Let’s also do everything we can to multiply our vote by getting out the vote of people who have qualms about President Biden or other Democratic electeds. Let’s get out the vote of people who are so tuned out they don’t know that we have a strong economy and instead think we’re in a recession and the stock market is going down. Of course, they blame Biden and are sleepwalking into fascism.
Knock on doors, hear people’s concerns, offer real facts, not alternative ones. But also hear their pain about feeling they’re falling behind or can’t get ahead because Republicans have rigged the system against them.
Remind them what’s at stake, including SCOTUS. If they elect Republicans or don’t empower President Biden with Democratic majorities in the House or Senate, it won’t be Biden’s fault.
So many reasons. For evangelical Christians, he’s the imperfect instrument to achieve their agenda. Also hard right conservatives have a view of the country that it’s like the family with a strict father, you believe in tough love only. They lack empathy and think tough love is the answer. They support the father’s authority. They feel the system is rigged against them, so they want their revenge. Trump is their instrument for that. They watch Fox News and similar media so their view of the world is distorted by truly fake news, etc., etc. We need to get Democrats to vote and reach people who are uninformed with potential consequences they care about like the assault on women’s healthcare, Republican denial of climate change, etc.
Because they do not see any real news or any real facts. They watch OAN and Newsmax; they shun even Fox now as too whatever. They are fed constant lies.
The price seems to have stabilized around $50 a share, up 100% from a little while ago. Trumpanzee boosting it. The short sellers are biding their time. And they may lose, if the orange turd wins.
Oh there is absolutely no doubt that Free Exercise has primacy for Alito and Thomas (and likely for all or most of the rest of the SCOTUS majority based on recent decisions) over what Thomas calls "novel constitutional right(s)" --- those being rights deriving from the right to privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which centered around the right of individuals to use contraception without government interference. They have made that clear. It was Griswold that birthed the landmark decisions of Roe, Obergefell (same-sex marriage) and Lawrence (same-sex sexual conduct). You can assume, as we're already seeing post-Roe, with medication abortion, IVF and hormonal contraception, the latter two are also in the crosshairs of the Dominionists, led by their two ideological stalking horses on the Court who obviously are under the delusion that they answer only to a pliable deity of their own conception, not the law. The right to believe is absolute. The right to act on those beliefs is not. Apparently until now.
It appears Chief Justice Robert’s chief of staff is Judge Robert M Dow, Jr. The switchboard for SCOTUS is (202) 479-3000. I’ll be calling tomorrow. Hope I won’t be the only one.
How can this be leveraged and why hasn’t it been done yet? If DOJ can take action to address the clear and inappropriate misuse of SCOTUS powers why haven’t they done so? May sound naive to ask but WTF?!! And all things considered “just vote” seems lame when SCOTUS will likely grant immunity. Voting won’t matter at that point. They will steal the 2024 election.
Merrill's waiting for his tenure to end and maybe another shot at SCOTUS, which would have been a better position for him, in nmy opinion. He is an nonorable man but the Mr. Rogers is too deep with him to be an effective AG.
Not surprising. He’s looking out for himself and not the country. Brilliant move. Well, history won’t be kind to him. At least, those of us who will remember the history since textbooks will be altered to fit trump & the Republican fascist party’s take on history.
I appreciate L.D. Michaels' comment. Is there any use in writing the Chief Justice? Does it matter one whit that I'm admitted to the Supreme Court Bar?
Yes, it does Greenjeans1. I have already written to Senator Whitehouse & Senator Durbin.
The SCOTUS Bar can also play an important role by demanding that Roberts not assign any further opinions to Alito or Thomas as their legitimacy has entirely evaporated.
I will have an opportunity to post to the SCOTUS Bar tomorrow morning when counsel are waiting for the "5 minute bell" on SCOTUSblog.com for Thursday's Opinions.
Thank you Valere. Decades ago I did go inspect the outside & inside of the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, I did touch 1 of the 8 marble columns; the marble pillars are about 4 feet wide & around 34 feet hight.
The marble came from the same quarry used by Michelangelo in Italy. The building also used some creamy colored mellow stone from Alabama as well. Good question for the Professor.
Good Friday Morning Valere. No & I'm a retired Attorney ... allegedly. I will monitor the next seven (7) Thursday SCOTUS Opinion days via SCOTUSblog.com hosted by the experienced Founder. AMY HOWE.
Within a minute or so AMY posts a link to the published Opinions. Pre Law folks Welcome.
Valere, no, I got very busy LIVE blogging as the 3 cases were handed down & briefly discussed on SCOTUSblog.com including the South Carolina case that Professor Vance is detailing Thursday night, 5/23, a few hours ago.
I did much better on the LIVE blogging this time -- only about 10 or so errors that had to be corrected.
Daniel who posts here on this substack is a retired judge. He writes under the Substack ‘Bagdad by the Sea.’ He is extremely knowledgeable about court. He said last night/early am responding to my question that the DOJ can stop Alito. I’ll try to find that post and copy it and paste it back on here for you to look at. But it’s astonishing that Merrick Garland has the power to do this and has not moved to do so.
Jen, to practice before the United States Court you must meet certain qualifications including having been admitted to practice before ANY state Supreme Court for 3 years & be "sponsored" by 2 attorney already admitted at SCOTUS.
Thank you Joyce your frustration (like ours) came through loud and clear.one reason why even in local elections for judges I see which governor appointed them as they do not give political affiliations.
Who will listen to our concerns and take them seriously? I’m getting tired of being enraged by the politicization of the court but having no clue who to contact that can make a difference. Other than talking to friends and acquaintances about Trump, who can affect change on scotus?
Thank you Joyce. We cannot give up, no matter how high the hurdles seem. I believe women will lift Biden to victory, and hopefully, give Dems the wins they need to win the House and d Senate. Then, we can clean house!!
Legislation to abolish Citizens United should be on Biden's desk right after the inauguration.
Citizens united is anti American.
Citizens United is certainly pro-oligarchy.
It dumps all over the idea Is that all of us are equal before the law.
That idea had mud all over it long before Citizens United came along.
Oh I totally agree.It was born with mud all over it. It was our job as a country to clean that mud off and let it shine but we never got there.
It should have been there in 2021.
*Legislation* to abolish a SCOTUS decision? Really? Citizens United *could* be overturned by the SCOTUS (hah!), and there are ways to undermine it legislatively, but they'll take time, careful crafting, and (of course) enough votes.
Yes - If Congress codifies it (and the ERA and Womens’ Reproductive Rights and the full Voting Rights Act) as law, it will then be safe from future SCOTUS rulings or Executive Orders.
You're missing my point. The OP wanted the bill on President Biden's desk when he starts his 2nd term in January. This is 100% unrealistic and shows a serious ignorance of how SCOTUS decisions can be, in effect, nullified.
Oh please. I do not pretend to know the legal procedures to change this. You understood my message. That's what matters. Get rid of Citizens United.
Absolutely!
And investigations into Thomas and Alito for taking bribes to thwart the courts decisions.
Citizens United cannot be overturned by legislation because the Supreme Court says it is required by the Constitution.
Thanks Joyce for reporting on this. It's outrageous what the Justices have done and are doing to our constitutional rights.
It will be the women's vote that saves us from Trump.
Thank you all in advance for saving our country.
It is time for women and men to March in Washington on Labor Day in support of Reproductive Rights! Who’s in? Where are the appropriate organizations? Rally the Nation?
Stand up for Choice......April 25,2004...Washington DC........I was a man marching that day with thousands......Twenty years later......do it again with 10's of thousands filling the streets
Ira - I live in New Mexico and can't be there if there were to be a march, however I would be happy to make a monetary contribution to such a cause if it were established.
Thanks..
There should be marches also on the same “labor” day in every State Capitol; does that sound correct?
I was in D.C. when they marched for Trump to provide his tax returns.
I would suggest that we should put more effort into changing how we elect the enablers. https://www.uniteamerica.org/primary-problem
The following are extracts from the Code of Conduct that binds all federal judges in the U.S. except those on the Supreme Court, which has refused to adopt the Code.
Samuel Alito has crossed the line on the prohibitions below, with emphasis in Canon 5 on his overt endorsement of Donald Trump and his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him.
Code of Conduct for United States Judges:
An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.
Canon 2A. An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired.
C. Disqualification. (1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which: (a) the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain From Political Activity A. General Prohibitions. A judge should not: (1) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office;
It's also written into the law at
28 US Code §455. Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv) Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2022-title28/html/USCODE-2022-title28-partI-chap21-sec455.htm
Maybe he can't be removed, but can he be SUED for breaking the law?
There’s a thought! A class action lawsuit by the citizens of these United States.
would that class actions were that easy.
I know…sigh😞 If only a brilliant lawyer would do this!
They are certainly not impossible
I am pretty sure the courts don't allow "taxpayers" or "voters" to be considered a class.
I don't think you can sue the government....
The recourse is voting.
And, Patricia, working hard to get other Dems and Independents to vote for Pres Biden!
Sign me up, please!
Re Marlene’s question: wouldn’t a class action make its way to the Supreme Court?
Double down on Joyce: VOTE! We’re supporting Democratic candidates for Congress who have a chance of winning, not so much those who hold secure seats or the “long-shots”, but those in close, winnable races.
But we also need to rid ourselves of spineless Democrats who simply won't "rock the boat", such as Senator (aptly named) Dick Durbin. Just because he knows the votes aren't there to impeach both Alito and Thomas, public hearings would go a long way toward educating the voting public of the damage being done by these partisan hacks on OUR Supreme Court. Just as the NAZI's are doing with their absurd impeachment hearings, the loud noise attracts attention, and we need to take the attention back. So the likes of Durbin need to be put out to pasture, replaced by firebrands like Rep Crockett, who WILL grab the national attention. It's time we get LOUD!!
Seeing Rep Crockett's name made me laugh - I love her. She would definitely get things done. She has enough cojones to make up for all the wimps in the senate.
Sad, isn't it, that 'she' has the balls, but 'he' doesn't? But yeah, SHE would get loud; SHE would get the needed publicity!!
BBBBBB T-shirts now on EBay.......even before Rep Jasmine Crockett secured the patent. Gotta Gotta luv her!!!
The race to replace Ken Buck with not the nasty dweeb Greg Lopez (kicked his pregnant wife and then another issue 3 years ago) followed by the execrable Lauren Boebert with Trisha Clavarese is very winnable.
If the "Democratic" male candidates in the primary would get out of the way. The twice rejected mentally unstable backed by republicans Ike mccorkle and John Pandora need to leave.
If you have a spare $10 support trisha4colorado
My mail program is really smart: all the emails I get from John Padora are automatically classified as junk. Thank you for enlightening me about who he is.
I think he's a decent guy. But during the election of candidates he shared the Mccorkle lie that Calvarese wasn't an eligible candidate for the office. Each of his plugs for his candidacy were good, responsible pitches. Unlike Mccorkle, who always appeared in his marine uniform and seemed really angry.
And we have three candidates running for the democratic spot so diluting the vote. They should both get out.
The spreading of the "unqualified" rumor disqualifies both of them. It needed to be brought up with the nominating certification body, and wasn't.
I keep wondering if we wouldn’t be better off legally going after the people who are corrupting/ bribing the judges with gifts, money, etc.
that too. Probably easier.
Who would have "standing" to sue?
All of us I would think.
Women certainly
Logically, you are completely correct but, as we've learned to our occasional sorrow, the law as currently practiced isn't always logical. I'd certainly participate in crowdfunding such a suit, but there'd need to be a couple of pretty sharp constitutional lawyers leading the way.
The answer to all dilemmas seems to be to “vote.” How does that help me in completely blood red SC where my vote is an exercise in futility EVERY ELECTION and the state is completely ignored as a consideration in 2024. SCOTUS just rejected an electoral college map that would have given the State the two districts it needs to fairly represent Blacks.
We have seven districts, need 8 to represent the state fairly, think Rep Jim Clyburn our national treasure. And Biden chose SC to go first as his lucky charm this year. It worked somehow in 2020 by means I don’t understand. I would like to turn just one red vote blue. Had a pleasant debate this pm with a high school colleague and dear friend who is very Catholic, engaged in promoting Trump and working as a poll worker this year because of one issue; ABORTION IS AGAINST HER RELIGIOUS TENANTS, natural birth control and abstinence are very workable in her experience. By some measure of disinformation, she considers Biden a bad example of Catholicism and religion on this issue alone.
Lack of information on any aspect of Project 2025; how is media not getting through to this classic mother of five?
She has never heard anything, laughed when I mentioned “dictator for life” and yet she is intelligent, involved in the community, etc. I just don’t understand. I have six months or less to change her mind but seems to hang on this one issue and I am out of my league discussing religion. Had no inclusion in any religion growing up nor since and for all the good it does, I’ll stick with my Agnostic and separation of church and state. What has religion done for Israel and Gaza as another example? I am elderly with disabilities, have a male caretaker who is a delightful Black pastor who readily pops into sermons to which I listen patiently and refrain from telling him there are 30,000 interpretations of the Bible. I suppose we all have our challenges at present. I just yearn for one win. The BIG ONE 2024 🏆would be nice but fairly sure, no matter the indictments, a BIDEN 🌊🌊🌊 will have to occur in more literate, blue by history states.
I am useless. 😰
Look at it this way. You have at least a shot at making a difference. Ironically, I live in the bluest corner of a deep blue state with 84% turnout in 2020. But even if everyone in the state suddenly saw the light it would not make a damn bit of difference. Our electoral vote is what it is, and "getting out the vote" here won't change it.
The answer is what I am calling Getting Out the Word--which can be done from afar or over coffee. With your friend: learn the talking points of Project 2025. As questions about the topic with curiosity, not challenge.
"Cutting back the FDA would certainly save money. Would you feel comfortable about the safety of your food and drugs if it was limited in what it could do? I'd be nervous about all those reports of food poisoning. What if workers cut back on sanitation precautions because it saved the owners money?"
That kind of thing.
With your Catholic friend, say "I saw an article about the 30 years war. Protestants and Catholics slaughtered each other by the millions over theology. If Christian Nationalists come into power, are you comfortable that they wouldn't insist on THEIR beliefs where the Evangelicals disagreed with Catholics? Who would decide which was right?
And so on.
The problem is there is no court he isn't higher than. Where would you sue? I think the only way to fight MAGA is with the same boldness, disregard and viciousness as MAGA treats law, order, the Constitution, and everyone not them. I don't like it. But I do not see any other way to confront this level of contempt and lawlessness.
Steve, when a Justice breaks the rules and can laugh at it, there is no power to stop him. “Rules? We don knee no stinkin’ rules”
Steve, that's amazing and I am guessing every one of the justices and judges in the feeral system know it, yet they flout it as though somehow it doesn't pertain to them. There should be real consequences, not impeachment which is ridiculous because it will never get someone convicted or removed. Maybe a rule that a justice must step aside for a year if he/she violates the law or be sent to a lower court for a time period based on the gravity of the act. Something must be done to hold people in power accountable. They have been running wild for too long. It's time!
Ruth, if the house flips and the senate gets a bit better majority, so they can do in the filibuster as currently practiced, and tfg loses bigly, it should be possible to oust them through impeachment. I am hoping and praying that Colin Allred defeats Ted Cruz, which will help somewhat in the senate. I couldn't agree with you more about holding the people in power accountable.
Particularly if they hold in favor of immunity!
I have Cannon in mind tonight when reading this. Her lack of professionalism and clear bias are shameful.
Yes of course. But nothing happens. She is is in charge and will not move. Just protecting her master. What is doing biden? Zilch. Something is definitely damn rotten in this country. And american governments want to tell other “democracies” what to do? Lol. America has no credibility anymore. It has become corrupt to the core. With all the protections surrounding von trump I fear he will be appointed next president. The last one. Afterwards they will name themselves “new messiah” or something even more deranged. What a mess!
And Chief Justice Roberts refuses to enforce a code of ethics! He is complicit!
How is it that those appearing for prosecutors in the 2020 election and Trump criminal matters have not sought the recusal of Thomas and Alito? On the other side of the Pacific (or the Atlantic, for that matter) those would be obvious applications to make, and highly likely to succeed.
Or have such applications been made and denied?
LD , with no consequence for dishonoring an oath, the oath itself has little value other than “performance art”
L.D., the question I have asked without adequate response is why is the Supreme Court not considered part of the court system and required to follow the rules everyone else in the system must follow? I remember when I was a government worker, I was told on day 1 there were certain things I could not do and one of them was to wear or carry anything that supported a particular candidate. I understood that because on work time, we were supposed to be impartial. Our judges and justices should be held at least to that basic standard, justices even higher standards since their rulings impact so many people.
Art. III of Constitution says "judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court" and other lower courts as Congress decides. "Shall be vested" is pretty exclusive and specific language. It does go on to say both SCOTUS and other judges shall hold office "during good Behavior" -- and I have wondered why we don't invoke THAT phrase, since they have no personal honor or integrity apparently. And I can certainly define corruption and aiding traitors as Bad Bahavior. (Interestingly, Art. III also defines treason. 14th Amendment speaks instead of "insurrection or rebellion: or giving "aid or comfort" to our enemies, the "aid and comfort" part of the definition of treason. )
I was a federal court employee for nearly 20 years and was very clear on the things I could and could not do re: political stuff, as were all the judges at my court, and we followed that stricture. There is an arrogance to these false gods who have been allowed to enjoy the benefit of every doubt in the world until now it becomes so apparent that they did not deserve it. They are worse than the criminal defendants they pass judgment on.
Reader, you are right on this one. I don't understand how We the People have let so much illegal behavior pass as acceptable. Justice Alito, for example is out of control. He cares nothing for the results of his decisions because he thinks like so many pseudo-christians that he has god's ear and is following god's will which means, as a toddler-men, he is doing what he wants and hurting as manypeople as possible with impunity. He only helps the ones he thinks will help him and the folks he likes. No judge or justice should sit on any court with that kind of personality. Then, there's Thomas and his bribery and having been purchased and Gorsuch and his gifts from "just friends." Amy Barrett, raised in a kind of cult sees everything as a kind of religious war but love, caring, kindness are not among the precepts she follows. Roberts, who knows what he is besides a racist misogynist, both evident before he was ever nominated to the court. The Federalist Society knew exactly what they were getting with Roberts. I am guessing Bush did too. Kavanaugh is also a misogynist who thought he could do whatever he wanted to women, as long as he was drunk and could use that as an excuse. OMG, our highest court conservatives are not the cream of the crop; they are appalling human beings ruling against people they don't know or care about in the name of some kind of religious insanity they can't even name, but they know it when they see it. Ugh!!
All I can say is that since 6-16-15 when the orange peel came down the golden escalator from his heaven, we have been distracted by the outrageousness and horrendous arrogance and criminality of a known sociopath. And why would anyone be surprised? That is what sociopaths do, create chaos and stand back enjoying the spectacle. I do have a bias against christianity also, even though I was raised with the good parts of that particular religion; what I see throughout the country by avowed "christians" is nothing I recognize as good and is only interested in getting more for themselves and taking away from others, which has completely driven me away from any interest in being forgiving of these "forgiven" hypocrites.
Ruth Sheets: Sorry for the delay in responding, which I am posting here and after my initial comment. You raised an excellent question. Thanks!
CORRECTION AND UPDATE FROM L.D.Michaels
I have a correction to make as a result of my research in following up on Ruth Sheets' very good question: " [W]hy is the Supreme Court not considered part of the court system and required to follow the rules everyone else in the system must follow?"
In researching her question, I discovered that on November 13, 2023, the Supreme Court promulgated a timely "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" that was signed by each Justice of the Supreme Court and which was prefaced with a "Statement of the Court Regarding the Code of Conduct".
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf
As we all know, the events leading up to the issuance of this code of conduct were the string of scandalous disclosures of luxury trips, gifts, payments and other things of value received by Clarence Thomas from his billionaire friends which Thomas failed to report, claiming they were merely "hospitalities" that did not need to be reported. Thomas' monetization of his position on the Supreme Court still remains an open sore in the reputation of the Supreme Court, on whose bench he still surprisingly sits.
The "Statement of the Court" in essence, is a self-serving proclamation that they have always been dutiful in observing the same code of conduct binding all other federal judges and also in observing additional judicial ethical standards. It goes on to state that the mere absence of a written Code of Conduct "has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct".
I would like to emphasize that while making the statement that this Code " largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct", the Supreme Court is formally acknowledging that they are retroactively validating that this Code applied to the conduct of the Justices prior to November 13, 2023.
My point on this issue is that the exact same prohibition cited above in Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States States Judges has been included in the "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: "A Justice should not 2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office". Therefore, the Supreme Court is acknowledging that this prohibition was in full force and effect and applied to Samuel Alito's flag waving overt endorsement of Donald Trump and his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Therefore, Alito cannot now contend that this provision only applied to the lower court federal judges and not to him.
Before I note one very disturbing position taken by the Justices in their Commentary on the "Statement of the Court", I would like to include a few relevant provisions in the Court's codification of its code of conduct:
->CANON 1: A."A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary"
CANON 2 B: " A Justice should not allow family, social, political, financial or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment"
CANON 3 A: " A Justice should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism".
CANON 3 B: DISQUALIFICATION (2) "A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. Such instances include, and are not limited to, those in which (a) The Justice has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;"
What is then truly disturbing is a follow-up series of commentaries, one of which, by deploying gobs of sophistry and hypocrisy and contrary to CANON 3's requirement of disqualification, asserts that whatever need there may be for a justice to disqualify or recuse himself or herself is outweighed by the need of the majority to issue their intended decision. Their twisted and distorted rationale places the need to render the decision they want to reach above the need to act honorably and ethically. One example provided of why a Justice should not recuse himself includes the fact that: one Justice recusing himself is "effectively the same as casting a vote against the petitioner". Another example furnished is that "[T]he absence of one Justice risks the affirmance of a lower court decision by an unevenly divided Court". The rest of their sophistry may be found in 4 long paragraphs in the above link.
And let's not forget, that it was Justice Thomas who did not recuse himself and provided the 5th needed vote to suspend the Jan.6 proceeding below pending the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's immunity appeal. And let's not also forget, that neither Thomas nor Alito recused themselves on Trump's immunity appeal and on the Colorado elections case appeal.
It seems clear that, regardless of their own Code of Conduct, the right-wing majority on the Court is going to continue to fabricate rationalizations, no matter how distorted they may be and no matter how flagrantly biased the Justices may be, as to why they are not recusing themselves.
L.D. Thank you for the information. I had read it before, but somehow the hypocrisy embedded escaped me then. Essentially, the "code" has left open the door to justices doing whatever they wish if they think it can be excused by claiming that justice is critical to the ruling. WHAT! The whole point is recusing is essential so the justice does not impact a case he/she should not be ruling on due to partisan or other activity. I guess they were hoping people wouldn't notice that part as I did not previously. Johnny Roberts knew what he was doing to protect the two cons who were acting so badly and protecting his majority. That should be a reason to kick a justice off the bench, but alas, we have no effective means to do that, so they go on and day after day we find out a new action that jeopardizes the integrity of the Supreme Court. That is shameful at least, criminal in reality, or should be.
Ruth Sheets: Sorry for the delay in responding, which I am posting here and after my initial comment. You raised an excellent question. Thanks!
CORRECTION AND FLLOW-UP
It is a massive omission to exclude the Extreme Court from these requirements.
Of course, as all extremist believe, those codes of conduct only apply to the "other guys", not to them.
CORRECTION AND UPDATE FROM L.D.Michaels
I have a correction to make as a result of my research in following up on Ruth Sheets' very good question: " [W]hy is the Supreme Court not considered part of the court system and required to follow the rules everyone else in the system must follow?"
In researching her question, I discovered that on November 13, 2023, the Supreme Court promulgated a timely "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES" that was signed by each Justice of the Supreme Court and which was prefaced with a "Statement of the Court Regarding the Code of Conduct".
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf
As we all know, the events leading up to the issuance of this code of conduct were the string of scandalous disclosures of luxury trips, gifts, payments and other things of value received by Clarence Thomas from his billionaire friends which Thomas failed to report, claiming they were merely "hospitalities" that did not need to be reported. Thomas' monetization of his position on the Supreme Court still remains an open sore in the reputation of the Supreme Court, on whose bench he still surprisingly sits.
The "Statement of the Court" in essence, is a self-serving proclamation that they have always been dutiful in observing the same code of conduct binding all other federal judges and also in observing additional judicial ethical standards. It goes on to state that the mere absence of a written Code of Conduct "has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct".
I would like to emphasize that while making the statement that this Code " largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct", the Supreme Court is formally acknowledging that they are retroactively validating that this Code applied to the conduct of the Justices prior to November 13, 2023.
My point on this issue is that the exact same prohibition cited above in Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States States Judges has been included in the "CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: "A Justice should not 2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office". Therefore, the Supreme Court is acknowledging that this prohibition was in full force and effect and applied to Samuel Alito's flag waving overt endorsement of Donald Trump and his claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Therefore, Alito cannot now contend that this provision only applied to the lower court federal judges and not to him.
Before I note one very disturbing position taken by the Justices in their Commentary on the "Statement of the Court", I would like to include a few relevant provisions in the Court's codification of its code of conduct:
->CANON 1: A."A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary"
CANON 2 B: " A Justice should not allow family, social, political, financial or other relationships to influence official conduct or judgment"
CANON 3 A: " A Justice should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism".
CANON 3 B: DISQUALIFICATION (2) "A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties. Such instances include, and are not limited to, those in which (a) The Justice has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;"
What is then truly disturbing is a follow-up series of commentaries, one of which, by deploying gobs of sophistry and hypocrisy and contrary to CANON 3's requirement of disqualification, asserts that whatever need there may be for a justice to disqualify or recuse himself or herself is outweighed by the need of the majority to issue their intended decision. Their twisted and distorted rationale places the need to render the decision they want to reach above the need to act honorably and ethically. One example provided of why a Justice should not recuse himself includes the fact that: one Justice recusing himself is "effectively the same as casting a vote against the petitioner". Another example furnished is that "[T]he absence of one Justice risks the affirmance of a lower court decision by an unevenly divided Court". The rest of their sophistry may be found in 4 long paragraphs in the above link.
And let's not forget, that it was Justice Thomas who did not recuse himself and provided the 5th needed vote to suspend the Jan.6 proceeding below pending the Supreme Court's ruling on Trump's immunity appeal. And let's not also forget, that neither Thomas nor Alito recused themselves on Trump's immunity appeal and on the Colorado elections case appeal.
It seems clear that, regardless of their own Code of Conduct, the right-wing majority on the Court is going to continue to fabricate rationalizations, no matter how distorted they may be and no matter how flagrantly biased the Justices may be, as to why they are not recusing themselves.
Which code is purely voluntary for them, unlike the code of conduct that all of us who worked in the federal court system (including judges to a greater degree with the intricate forms they had to update yearly with the particulars of their financial situations and submit to the Judicial Council or the Administrative Office of the US Courts; we employees just had to sign a document attesting under penalty of perjury that we were not doing forbidden political things) were drilled on every.single.year. Thank you, LD, for this. If it's okay with you, I will print it out for future use.
ALITO DELIBERATELY SUPPORTS THE BIG LIE FOR POLITICAL MOTIVES. There is an aspect of Alito's flag-flying that hasn't received much comment: He has deliberately supported and adopted what he knows to be a lie: the claim that Trump won in 2020 but was robbed of victory by election fraud.
First, we can safely say that, notwithstanding Alito's claim that his wife was responsible for flying the insurrectionists' flag, it represents his views as well as hers. If my wife and I were to disagree on an important political issue, neither of us would apply a bumper sticker or plant a yard sign or fly a flag that represented one of our views, but not the other's. Since we can assume a Supreme Court just is not easily cowed by his spouse, the upside down flag plainly represented his view, not just his wife's.
Second, since Justice Alito is not a total ****ing moron, he knows perfectly well that the 2020 election was NOT stolen. There was no steal to stop, and Alito knows this full well. We can safely presume he is aware, for example, that in 60 lawsuits, Trump and his supporters failed to present an iota of meaningful evidence of election fraud (a fact of which the Supreme Court itself could take judicial notice) and (2) he is perfectly aware that Trump's own White House officials confirmed there was no evidence of meaningful election fraud. Which is to say, no one with any kind of legal mind would believe Trump's stolen election lie.
This means that Alito, although fully aware that the "Stop the Steal" flag represented a giant lie, deliberately chose to express support for the lie and to express solidarity with those who embraced the lie.
Justice Alito has staked out the same role for himself as the "conservative" judges occupied in the period of Germany's pre-Nazi, democratic Weimar Republic, a role of undermining democracy and pandering to fascist assassins. The right-wing justices of Weimar Germany helped pave the way for the Nazi Party to achieve power.
It is not a stretch to conclude that Justice Alito is a supporter of American fascism, and similarly seeks to assist American's would-be fascist ruler, Donald Trump, to achieve power.
Exactly. Alito bought the coup hook, line, and sinker on that fishing trip and others with the (anti)American oligarchs. He is all in to overthrow our government.
Dana, “bought” the coup? He IS the coup
He is all in to become our government.
The Movie JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG highlights how the judiciary system under Hitler crumbled as leading jurists succumbed to the dictates of Hitler. Creep, creep, creep, crap!
When you have justices such as Alito and Thomas and judges like Cannon, as they say in the Middle East, the camel’s nose is under the tent.
Trump, who has spent (other people’s $$$) over $150,000,000 to circumvent the judicial system’s indictment/trial system, has made crystal clear his opinion of the Constitution and the sanctity of the Department of Justice.
I recently re-watched JUDGMENT AT NUREMBERG. Don’t think that it can’t happen here. IT IS HAPPENING!
Great saying "camel's nose under tent"!!!
Suzc ‘Camel’s nose’ came from when I was writing a book on Nasser’s Egypt in the 1950s.
I find it extremely expressive. Once a smelly camel (or Trumpite) squiggles into your tent/life,
AAAKWK!
and yet their cousins, the alpaca, is among the most serene of creatures. But I am definitely swiping the phrase! Thx. (What are you writing these days?)
Suzc i’m posting diverse comments on US politics, economy, Gaza, Ukraine and Putin, China, and 1984. Just finished 40 stories for Storyworth about aspects of my life. At 90 I love to keep my mind active. You can follow me on Joyce’s, Heathers’, and Jim Fallows’ Substacks as well as perhaps 7 commentaries on NYT weekly.
I had lunch with a 92-year-old friend last week. He would agree with you about staying mentally active. We are elders now, not elderly....imho
Correct. Which makes him a traitor to the nation.
Why couldn't he just "man up"? If he flouts it, he darn better well own it.
He thinks Gawd is on his side. Mentally ill narcisistic sadist.
More coffee.
Agree 100%. And remember the Robert’s canard that judges should only call balls and strikes? As is always the case with the Reich Party that was only intended for the other side. Stare decisis for thee but not for me
This may be just whistling into the wind but I think we need a new symbol that represents the desire for judicial reform and I suggest we make it a flag that we carry in marches and protests. I think the design might incorporate the traditional picture of Lady Justice (or Themis for those who take a longer view) wearing a blindfold and holding the scales. I’m not a graphic designer or I’d draw up a flag design myself. Any takers? We could send the first one to Joyce.
Personally, I think Lady Justice should be looking at the Supreme Court building ,with tears streaming down her face. No blindfold, she is fully aware of the travesty taking place, and, is expressing her disappointed!
I agree this is a better choice to make the point.
Yes! This! I still remember the tv commercial years ago (I think about littering) of a Native American chief with a tear on his cheek. Very powerful. Maybe just the bust of lady justice without the blindfold and with tears.
I feel that with the blindfold off, it shows that she (we) are aware of the depravity that is going on.
I remember well the commercial you have mentioned. It was very powerful!
You're right about the blindfold being off.
I think we should also reclaim the American Flag -- every time I see it these days I think it must be flown by a Trumper. What a sad state of affairs. How can we reclaim it in the same way the LGBTQ community reclaimed the word 'queer' and removed the insult and made it a term of pride?
I’ve always flown a flag outside my home and I’m a Democrat who strongly supports left leaning ideals. I also have campaign yard signs for many months leading up to elections and there is no doubt I support Democrats and Democrat led legislation - Do both and reclaim that flag.
I have an American flag magnet to the right of my back license plate, and a Biden magnet to the left of my license plate. They complement each other perfectly.
And to all of you writing about reclaiming the flag, I just remembered I took mine down from the porch in advance of a noreaster and then had my shoulder replaced in January. I just put it back up now! Thanks for the reminder! And the healing shoulder!
Me too. I saw one flying off a car the other day, a little thing, not the giant ones on the pickemup trucks, and had to remind myself Memorial Day weekend is coming. Maybe that was it.
We should
I may just put back out my "Love Trumps Hate" poster.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that way. Most of the time I see other signs of the trump view, like the car in my neighborhood that has a huge "go brandon" decal on the back window, or the guy who flies the "trump train" flag under his American flag. But, in reading other replies, I will try to make fewer assumptions.
I'm living in Tucson right now. I feel like I am behind enemy lines.
I hear you! I live in El Paso, which is basically sane, but governance of our state leaves me feeling like you do.
I'll bet it does. Texas wants to lead the way on the road to fascism.
From “Freedom and Government” an essay by Bertrand Russell
"The first step in a fascist movement is the combination under an energetic leader of a number of men who possess more than the average share of leisure, brutality, and stupidity.
The next step is to fascinate fools and muzzle the intelligent, by emotional excitement on the one hand and terrorism on the other."
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2024/02/28/fools-muzzle/
IMO the only thing energetic about Governor Abbott is his nastiness and cruelty. Terrorism is definitely his thing.
I live in Tucson too. Tucson is blue, and Pima County is blue. I don't share your feelings. We live in an area that is quite diverse. Even driving around town, I don't see a lot of trump messaging. I wonder if you might be located in a gated community or planned community such as Saddlebrook or Green Valley? Just curious why we might see things differently.
I grew up Washington state, I still own 5 acres of trees with a small cabin and huge garage and my own well. I spent a career teaching in LA.
I know some folks who have been here for years.
Just my feelings. I've spent my life in extremely blue areas.
I'm not used to living in a place where I can walk into a gun store and buy a pistol and a box of ammo in less than an hour. I can then shove said pistol in my pocket thereby concealing it, all without a permit.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. We too are lifetime blue. Chicago prior to Tucson, love both places.
Just fly it. And if you are concerned that people will think you’re a Trump fan, put out some yard signs such as the “Love is Love” and other messages of equality and compassion I have seen around. I live in Maine and it’s very common to fly the American flag, maybe because most people have large lots or acreage and there’s plenty of room for a flagpole.
Or how about Lady Justice holding her blindfold up to peek a bit, at least for the current times.
Yes Sioux, there is a fabulous designer on this site and I’m trying to recall his name. I’m going to look up some of the things he has done and recommend this to him.
Sounds perfect!
Great idea.
Ms Vance, wow, I have never heard you this angry before. Carry on.
Yes! Her sarcasm is music to my ears! Bring it on!
Some people, mostly white men (because of their privilege), get to positions of power and begin to believe that they are special, that their wants and needs are superior to others, and that they don't have to listen to anyone else's viewpoint. They no longer doubt what they say or believe, and they dismiss contrary views. They aren't wise and they lose any capacity to be humble. When that person is also a religious "true believer" the outcomes are worse because they believe they have God on their side. Joyce is right, we have to vote, up and down the ballot. It'll take time and it's difficult to wait, but we can't give up.
It has to reach beyond this small group? How can it happen when even the press won't cover it? How? We are not big enough. Most people believe we are in a recession, that Biden is responsible for everything bad.
Thank YOU for your incredibly hard work - day after day and late into the night - providing such important and knowledgeable commentary. It motivates us all to keep believing and working for democracy. In gratitude!!
This coming Memorial Day is especially poignant for me under the present circumstances for the country. A time I ask you to join with me and other former and active "losers and suckers" especially now, to remember those of us who gave that last full measure of devotion to the very simple but fragile ideal of being able to live your life as you see fit. A devotion to an ideal that escaped a once Commander-in-Chief as he stood over the grave of the son of his chief of staff at Arlington on a past Memorial Day and had the effrontery to say, "I don't get it. What was in it for them ?" He'll never "get it." But it's what was in it for them and is now for most of us that we must preserve come November. They're counting on us.
"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old. Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. We shall remember them. " From "For the Fallen," Laurence Binyon
I am a Navy veteran myself from the Vietnam era and support this devotion to the country and its traditions wholeheartedly and will be participating in a Memorial Day service honoring those who gave their last full measure of devotion for freedom. Thank you, Dale.
Thank you for your service!
Thank you for noticing!
I am in a DNC veterans/military family discussion group. Vietnam combat veteran, 1966-67. Fred Wellman is in the group. https://fpwellman.substack.com/ Has a TV program Friday nights. Thousands of followers.
Looking to spread the word? 4 million people on Facebook are veterans or active duty members. 12.5 million people on Facebook are family members of a veteran or an active duty member. 242 million people on Facebook are friends with one or more veterans or active duty members.
Go to those sites and say the magic words "not suckers or losers" and see what happens.
Many who voted twice for Trump will flip. https://votevets.org/videos/brig-gen-ret-steven-anderson-discusses-wapo-op-ed-regarding-new-capitol-insurrection-threat-on-cnn
Thank you for this information. Your comment actually gives readers a viable tool to reach a crucial demographic to remind them which political party supports veterans. Following your suggestion would have a larger impact than say writing to Dick Durbin to have hearings on Alito - which he will not do. Again thank you.
Daniel, thank you for this. I am truly appalled that this is even necessary but it would be an honor to even have one veteran reconsider their choice.
Thank you for your service Dale. My now deceased husband was a psychologist in Vietnam. I am so proud of him for his service even while he didn’t believe it was a just war. He served and as a psychologist in a medical unit, he was a sitting duck because he wasn’t allowed to have weapons. He served while heel spurs received deferments. I am broken when I read comments by current, and former senior officers on Trump’s staff and in the Pentagon, who suffered his verbal abuse. We simply must defeat him, so he never appears again. I know the military has traditionally been conservative. I’m hoping the strong comments by serving and now retired senior officers is sending a message to defend our constitution because “We don’t serve a person, we serve our constitution and our country.” I know it’s difficult for folks to be raised as conservative Republicans in the right way not the right wing Christian nationalist evangelical MAGA mode, to think about voting for Biden because it means voting for a party they have not supported. I’m telling them to just do it once. Then they can go back to reforming what is left of the Republican Party. And Trump has driven it off the cliff in a bus: but you can’t really tell folks that they have to “make a life time change.“ So I simply tell them to just vote Blue once to vote against Trump.
Thanks. Yes, there are never any "good" wars. Very occasionally a necessary one. Only good men and women.
YES.
Alito and Thomas are shameless as they absolutely know that they should recuse themselves. They are supposed to be self-governing with Roberts as the chief Justice. He has his head in the sand.
Who gets the blame for the flag at the beach house?
Is it the gardener, the maid or another disgruntled
neighbor?
They both should just resign. They are both guilty of taking bribes (vacations, trios, airline flights , motor
Home) as well as not being impartial. They don’t even try to hide their impartiality.
Usually I would say they are doing things for lowercased don, but IMO it’s for the Republicans, not just elected officials but all of them. It’s to rile them all up. The fact they call themselves Christians is still crazy as they don’t walk the walk or talk the talk of any true Christian. November seems a long time away. When Democrats overtake the don and his minions, they an be indicted. Then we can pass new term limits and have a proctor to oversee their actions.
Everyday there has been something else to 😡.
Thank you for teaching and leading us onward. Remember that every single vote counts.
And Roberts ought to be first in line pressuring them to resign.
You are absolutely correct!
Roberts ought to resign himself. His complicity is in full view.
Bonnie, Of course. He ought to be. What do the puppet masters have on him?
His wife's multimillion dollar salary probably.
Yes, let’s vote. Let’s also do everything we can to multiply our vote by getting out the vote of people who have qualms about President Biden or other Democratic electeds. Let’s get out the vote of people who are so tuned out they don’t know that we have a strong economy and instead think we’re in a recession and the stock market is going down. Of course, they blame Biden and are sleepwalking into fascism.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/22/poll-economy-recession-biden
Knock on doors, hear people’s concerns, offer real facts, not alternative ones. But also hear their pain about feeling they’re falling behind or can’t get ahead because Republicans have rigged the system against them.
Remind them what’s at stake, including SCOTUS. If they elect Republicans or don’t empower President Biden with Democratic majorities in the House or Senate, it won’t be Biden’s fault.
Trump's people just don't care. Why don't they care?
So many reasons. For evangelical Christians, he’s the imperfect instrument to achieve their agenda. Also hard right conservatives have a view of the country that it’s like the family with a strict father, you believe in tough love only. They lack empathy and think tough love is the answer. They support the father’s authority. They feel the system is rigged against them, so they want their revenge. Trump is their instrument for that. They watch Fox News and similar media so their view of the world is distorted by truly fake news, etc., etc. We need to get Democrats to vote and reach people who are uninformed with potential consequences they care about like the assault on women’s healthcare, Republican denial of climate change, etc.
Because they do not see any real news or any real facts. They watch OAN and Newsmax; they shun even Fox now as too whatever. They are fed constant lies.
Hi Gary, All true. Since you brought up the stock market, Trump‘s Truth Social,
I think under DJT has been losing hugely. The answer by the manipulators who are funding him has been to issue more shares.
The price seems to have stabilized around $50 a share, up 100% from a little while ago. Trumpanzee boosting it. The short sellers are biding their time. And they may lose, if the orange turd wins.
Oh there is absolutely no doubt that Free Exercise has primacy for Alito and Thomas (and likely for all or most of the rest of the SCOTUS majority based on recent decisions) over what Thomas calls "novel constitutional right(s)" --- those being rights deriving from the right to privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which centered around the right of individuals to use contraception without government interference. They have made that clear. It was Griswold that birthed the landmark decisions of Roe, Obergefell (same-sex marriage) and Lawrence (same-sex sexual conduct). You can assume, as we're already seeing post-Roe, with medication abortion, IVF and hormonal contraception, the latter two are also in the crosshairs of the Dominionists, led by their two ideological stalking horses on the Court who obviously are under the delusion that they answer only to a pliable deity of their own conception, not the law. The right to believe is absolute. The right to act on those beliefs is not. Apparently until now.
Brava Dale!
Please tell us the best way to reach someone at SCOTUS offices. Like maybe John Robert’s chief of staff…?
It appears Chief Justice Robert’s chief of staff is Judge Robert M Dow, Jr. The switchboard for SCOTUS is (202) 479-3000. I’ll be calling tomorrow. Hope I won’t be the only one.
Only DOJ can help.
Hi Daniel,
Do you mean the DOJ can bring an indictment against Alito?
That plus bring emergency motions in the immunity cases.
How can this be leveraged and why hasn’t it been done yet? If DOJ can take action to address the clear and inappropriate misuse of SCOTUS powers why haven’t they done so? May sound naive to ask but WTF?!! And all things considered “just vote” seems lame when SCOTUS will likely grant immunity. Voting won’t matter at that point. They will steal the 2024 election.
The immunity cases are pending. DOJ is a party. Can fille bias affidavits, request an emergency hearing.
Leonard Leo and Harlan Crow can be subpoenaed to a grand jury. ,
Seriously?
We don't have the votes to impeach. Not enough to enforce a Congressional subpoena. Plus it's s-l-o-w,
Garland won’t do a thing. Not until another committee like the Jan 6th Committee forces him to do so.
Merrill's waiting for his tenure to end and maybe another shot at SCOTUS, which would have been a better position for him, in nmy opinion. He is an nonorable man but the Mr. Rogers is too deep with him to be an effective AG.
Not surprising. He’s looking out for himself and not the country. Brilliant move. Well, history won’t be kind to him. At least, those of us who will remember the history since textbooks will be altered to fit trump & the Republican fascist party’s take on history.
I agree. He would have been a good judge. He's a lousy lawyer.
Public pressure, with affidavits from potential witnesses may force him.
I appreciate L.D. Michaels' comment. Is there any use in writing the Chief Justice? Does it matter one whit that I'm admitted to the Supreme Court Bar?
Yes, it does Greenjeans1. I have already written to Senator Whitehouse & Senator Durbin.
The SCOTUS Bar can also play an important role by demanding that Roberts not assign any further opinions to Alito or Thomas as their legitimacy has entirely evaporated.
I will have an opportunity to post to the SCOTUS Bar tomorrow morning when counsel are waiting for the "5 minute bell" on SCOTUSblog.com for Thursday's Opinions.
Many thanks. I will be pleased to read your post and may write letters as well.
Thank you for your work Bryan
Thank you Valere. Decades ago I did go inspect the outside & inside of the U.S. Supreme Court. Yes, I did touch 1 of the 8 marble columns; the marble pillars are about 4 feet wide & around 34 feet hight.
The marble came from the same quarry used by Michelangelo in Italy. The building also used some creamy colored mellow stone from Alabama as well. Good question for the Professor.
Are you admitted to the SCOTUS?
I tried to find your post on their website, but could not find it
Good Friday Morning Valere. No & I'm a retired Attorney ... allegedly. I will monitor the next seven (7) Thursday SCOTUS Opinion days via SCOTUSblog.com hosted by the experienced Founder. AMY HOWE.
Within a minute or so AMY posts a link to the published Opinions. Pre Law folks Welcome.
Did you post on their site today?
Valere, no, I got very busy LIVE blogging as the 3 cases were handed down & briefly discussed on SCOTUSblog.com including the South Carolina case that Professor Vance is detailing Thursday night, 5/23, a few hours ago.
I did much better on the LIVE blogging this time -- only about 10 or so errors that had to be corrected.
ps
Daniel who posts here on this substack is a retired judge. He writes under the Substack ‘Bagdad by the Sea.’ He is extremely knowledgeable about court. He said last night/early am responding to my question that the DOJ can stop Alito. I’ll try to find that post and copy it and paste it back on here for you to look at. But it’s astonishing that Merrick Garland has the power to do this and has not moved to do so.
What is your blog address? Can to share that or DM me with it?
Bryan I am curious - does the SCOTUS Bar take public positions on the actions of the Justices?
No they do not Connie but, there were over 2000 Attorneys admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court on this morning LIVE SCOTUsblog.com.
What is the SCOTIS bar, please? What influence does it have?
Jen, to practice before the United States Court you must meet certain qualifications including having been admitted to practice before ANY state Supreme Court for 3 years & be "sponsored" by 2 attorney already admitted at SCOTUS.
SCOTUS Admissions Office
1 First Street
NE, DC
And to sit on the Court you need to practice "good behavior".
So you have argued
Or be impeached.
Waiting to see if he blames the pool boy.
Har!
It was most likely the Jersey devil....
Thank you Joyce your frustration (like ours) came through loud and clear.one reason why even in local elections for judges I see which governor appointed them as they do not give political affiliations.
Who will listen to our concerns and take them seriously? I’m getting tired of being enraged by the politicization of the court but having no clue who to contact that can make a difference. Other than talking to friends and acquaintances about Trump, who can affect change on scotus?
I also wonder about this. Such madness. Joyce Vance can you please address this and help guide us?
Check out the dialogue above by a couple of SCOTUS Bar members. Looks like maybe that group could put on some pressure if it would.