I'm curious what the chain of command is if SCOTUS refuses to come up with a code of conduct. They are claiming Congress has no power to impose one or regulate them. I thought the purpose of "balance of power" was for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to watch over each other? Who can impose compliance? Is the system we have relied on for so many years falling apart because too much of it was on the honor system, and we are short on honorable people?
Congress in fact does have the power. It has ruled several times on the size of the court, on the cases the court can and cannot rule on, and other items regarding the administration and operation of the court. The only thing congress cannot intervene on is the actual specific decisions by the court.
Joyce is correct by stating that voting is the only way to reign in Clarence Thomas. And call your reps and the President, and ask them to increase the number of justices on the court. (before all regulations which safeguard us in this country are gone.)
Get out and vote a significant majority of Democrats into the Senate - a "filibuster-proof" majority as was done in 2008, and many things will become possible.
My understanding is that, where complex legislation is concerned, Congress often leaves the drafting of the specifics up to the applicable agencies, whose staff have a much better idea of what's needed than the legislators do. So the distinction between what's actually in the statute and what's part of the implementation can be very fuzzy. Are the anti-regulators being strict constructionists about all this and insisting that if something isn't in the legislation itself, it's invalid?
My understanding is that somewhat akin to Tubby’s stymie of the military advancement issue, the Koch group et al wish to have all issues decided by Congress, an attempt to thoroughly throw sand into the cogs of legislation. A nonfunctional Federal Government is their end game.
TC, Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that Congress only can intervene on statutory rulings like Ledbetter, contrary to constitutional rulings.
@TutoneSF, Contrary to a constitutional ruling based on interpretation of the Constitution, a statutory ruling is based on interpretation of a statute, that is, a law or legislation. While the former is final, unless the Constitution is amended or the Court reverses its ruling, Congress can intervene in the latter, for example, by rewriting the statute.
TCinLA - The edges and corners of "power" seem to be showing these days. Subpoenas (Jordon), peaceful transfer of power, following SCOTUS rulings (ie gerrymandering), and Congress over SCOTUS to name a few. It just seems that "nope" is becoming a strategy, and the consequences are thin if any. Or is there just no appetite to apply them?
But still - Congress may have power and regulate, but who shows up to handcuff SCOTUS if they ignore a new code? Do they get impeached or indicted? Who brings the charges, Congress or the people?
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, our outrages about SCOTUS fall more under breaches of ethics, and SCOTUS is not subject to external ethics enforcement. Charges/indictment would be brought for having broken the law, which they cleverly skirt. Congress does not currently have the political will to impeach even the most egregious offender, Clarence Thomas.
The "chain of command" line of authority does not point us to fixes for SCOTUS as much as the "balance of power" does. As we painfully learn more and more how rogue and corrupt our current SCOTUS is, the fixes will have to come from Congress, which means We the People raising our voices to demand code of ethics, expand the Court, and possibly term limits. If the Court is expanded, then the executive branch can step in with nominations.
It's not that we are short of honorable people. It's just that the former White House occupant, the present traitor, has set the inexcusable example that it is permissible to act in a dishonorable fashion no matter what damage it causes and who it hurts. They call it the "bully pulpit" for a reason, and it should never be handed over to a bully, let alone a traitor to the Constitution and America.
Unfortunately, new guardrails will have to be enacted to prevent those bad actors from causing more damage by disregarding the "honorable thing to do". But it remains that people must be careful who they vote for and pay attention to what they do, not what they say. There are still honorable people out there willing to serve. Vote them in, and get rid of the dishonorable trash.
Just to clarify an erroneous assumption here: the word "bully" meant something different in the early 20th century than how we use the word now. It was originally a positive term of affection or admiration, dating from the 1600s. (New Oxford American Dictionary: "... origin late 16th century (originally of a person meaning ‘admirable, gallant, jolly’."
The current usage dates from the mid 19th century, and even then, esp in North America, 'continued to be used to refer to something well-done or a compliment. A job well done was "bully". So Teddy Roosevelt's "Bully Pulpit" described something that was seen as a good thing: a position from which to promote social goods.
I have no idea what the process was that led to bully being seen as a negative force. But could conjecture that many of TR's ideas were resented by people who resented his attempts at governmental reform. The use of bully in the sense we now think of it is largely a North American thing. Other English speaking countries still often use it as complimentary.
"Bully" did once mean 'good going'. In America, by almost everyone's understanding of the word, it is now associated with those who push others around detrimentally, or as the dictionary puts it, to hurt or frighten someone weaker.
I stand corrected as to what "Bully Pulpit" means. I hope in the future of this country, it can once again carry it's original meaning.
Thanks for the clarification! I love being educated!
Thanks for the location, Gene. Seems Thomas is intent on some interpretation here.
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
They'll have to argue it but given that we have three branches none of which is completely independent, I think that stretches to the conclusion that Congress can regulate SCOTUS and has in the past, increasing and decreasing the number of judges is only one example. But the idea of any institution having the LAST word on its own conduct flies in the face of reason common sense or the common good.
All the above. Balance of power is being called into question. We don’t have honorable people on the court with recent justices selected from a list put forward by The Federalist Society, The Heritage Action Fund, Leonard Leo, etc. by a president who served them, not the citizens who vote.
It is clear to this reader that the U.S. democracy is facing serious challenges by extremists driven by religious dogma, anti-regulation capitalism, and a SCOTUS writing opinions based not on constitutional law and principles but rather personal agendas. We are faced with a civil upheaval promoted by parties, organizations, and individuals who are determined to not let their moment in the sun pass before the curtain falls for them, our democracy, our environment and our civil and voting rights - hoping and aggressively working to advance their dogmatic ideology. We are, in essence, fighting a civil war without drawing arms but rather wrestling to the ground one or the other side of this most polarized and chaotic divide. There is no question in my mind that power and greed are leading and misleading the American citizens. I trust they will fail at some point soon.
He can be impeached but not with this Congress. Congress can pass ethics laws for all branches and has limited executive powers in the past. They can also pass laws which in effect neutralize a SOCTUS decision. Each branch’s checks and balances are tailored by the Articles in the Constitution.
Trust the young women who have been ensnared in trump's cabal. They will speak their truth! And that will expose trump. Thank you Cassidy, Molly et al.
With regard to the Raimondo case, which seeks to overthrow the court's judgement in Chevron, affirming the power of agencies to set rules and administer the laws (which Thomas wrote) Mehdi Hasan had tape this evening of Thomas speaking to one of these billionaire conferences, in which he said that just because a judge ruled one way in a previous case, no one should assume that the judge's views on the matter "had not evolved" when a subsequent case on that issue comes before the court.
In other words, Thomas announced he will reverse the ruling he wrote in Chevron, and happily throw "the administrative state" into a tailspin for the assistance of his benefactors.
If ever there was a clear case for recusal, this is it - he's said everything but "I will reverse myself" on this case.
So, since Roberts is the Chief of the Court, can he not “force” Thomas to recuse himself? Not that he would, but let’s say for saving face, do you think he has the authority do that?
Well then, why have a chief? In Indian tribes, the Chief is the leader, the organizer, the one in charge. In the case of SCOTUS, no one is driving the train.
In my husband’s tribe the Chief is not all powerful and instead works in conjunction with the Council. Obviously as we’ve seen in the past some Chiefs have more power than others, Warren and Burger come to mind. It seems apparent Roberts has no such charisma.
Thank you for clarifying a common assumption among non-Indians about the role of a so-called "chief" in many, perhaps most American indigenous nations. The term "Chief" was applied by white men who could not grasp the processes of decision-making- which tended toward a more communal process. Among many, the Council of Women had the ultimate say, but European mind couldn't even grasp that, let alone recognize it.
We were able to visit the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian a couple of weeks ago. The disconnect between the US Government’s idea of society and landownership and that of the Native Tribes was an overarching theme.
“Every time Trump makes a public statement, he seems to be walking a perilous tightrope between confession and additional obstruction of justice. And it’s the public who he continues to place in peril.”
This pair of sentences underscores the perception of a weak court..He has crossed the line long ago..he is no longer being treated like any other criminal defendant..There is only one course of action to be taken at this juncture..Trump must have his bail forfeited and he must be remanded into custody..He is making a mockery of the court..
Jack Smith is concerned that the MAGA will go nuts if Trump is taken into custody. That’s why I Jack Smith has been pushing for an as soon as possible trial. I recall reading this in someone’s analysis – it could’ve been Joyce – sorry I’m brain dead tonight and can’t recall who said this. The question did come up in a prior post in this sub stack, when Trump posted on social media “if you come for me I’m coming for you. “May not be quoting exactly his words, but that was the general gist of it. An analyst said (as the above), that. Jack Smith was worried about MAGA reaction to putting Trump in jail. The judges response was that she would have no choice, except to move the trial date forward.
The maga crowd are cowards, they are hangers on to the coattails if their bully..Take him down a couple of pegs by remanding him and 99% of them will not do a thing..the 1% who attempt an action will be met with more force than they try to dish out..They are not unlike the pilot fish Lindsay Graham that Steve Schmidt speaks of..There is only one way to deal with a bully.. You punch them in the face and break their nose.. For this matter, to not jail Trump at this point is a big mistake..10X bigger a mistake than the CNN and NBC disasters..
Thank you Sam. I like Steve Schmidt as well. I do believe Jack Smith's specialty has been dealing with the ultra-bullies of the planet (he has put presidents of countries in jail). I think that is why, even with a seemingly changing legal scene, he is moving forward as quickly as possible. He has just brought in a prosecutor from the Hague - a former buddy from his years working there. And it is Jack Smith's life and that of his colleagues that has been threatened, so he's plenty concerned. It's all above my paygrade, but they (judges/DOJ) may be considering the damage the 1% may do. Trump is bleeting to the masses to get votes because he is afraid of jail. The FBI is watching the 1%. It's just my personal opinion, but I believe following the process to get Trump in front of a jury ASAP is best. If they throw him in jail now, it will surely delay that process: and that is the end-game goal, to try him in court. He is horrid. Trump always has a plan B up his sleeve: he might be pushing to be put in jail to gain the right to claim delays. And it would surely rile the MAGA.
Valere, I think you make cogent points..however, to me, and with all respect, they are from a position of fear..Since the beginning of this whole thing we have been operating from a place of too much caution..DOJ dragged its feet to begin investigating, It was only when Smith came aboard that things began to move..As I, to the best of my ability try to assess these cases, I don't see how jailing him for contempt will slow down anything..I don't see how it changes the trial date..Conversely, I believe it creates the necessity to speed things up..A few days in an orange jumpsuit and a trial date moved up two weeks as a punch in the nose of the real world..If the 1% decide to take some kind of action that is on them..At the end of the day, if he is to be dealt with like any other criminal defendant, then this must be done..Otherwise, all of the talk and admonitions from the court are just gaslighting bullshit..And we have no rule of law..enough already..
We have agreed that Trump is horrid. But he is allegedly a criminal - so he has to have his day in court. It winds along very slowly but I believe justice prevails. We certainly had a rule of law when he was convicted of rape in the case of E Jean Carroll, and that took a long long time. In my opinion, it’s better to follow the rule of law and let it takes its course. And the judges and Jack Smith are thinking about how to get the case into court as quickly as possible so as to cause the least amount of havoc from the MAGA. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m not saying I’m right not at all. We are dealing with a faction that believes the Earth is flat. We need to use our energy to support getting Biden elected. I respect your opinion, but the hammer down for Trump has to come from the jury. I’m sharing Joyce’s column with all of my friends all the time. We need to educate, educate, educate. And follow the rule of law. I’m not saying throwing Trump in jail for a day or two would be the wrong thing to do, I just wonder if moving to put Trump in jail now would play into his hands. He thrives on drama.
The most interesting event for me is that Jack Smith brought in a war crimes prosecutor. So what does that mean? And why did Jack bring him in now? I think he’s (Jack Smith) is about to make some waves around some kind of extra judicial killings. With a mindset like Trump, anything is possible. And by the way, I’ve always wondered why they brought in Jack Smith from the Hague anyway. They obviously wanted someone with his skill set involving international stuff.
Well, there is a lot to unpack in your remarks..I will for the moment say this regarding jail for Trump..He is still innocent and convicted of nothing..Merely in Contempt of Court..Being dealt with as you and I would be..Period..The concept of "No one is above the law" is pandering and gaslighting if he is not held to the same standard as anyone one else..I do not stand in fear of what the flat Earthers might do if the law is strictly followed as the AG likes to say "Without fear or favor".
With security in place for those who have been threatened, Trump in jail is the right visual. A little humiliation should cause him to lose some of the MAGA who talk a big game but will not follow through. I hope.
Karen, your rational is correct..It is as I see it as well.. We have got to stop cowering in a corner..and bite down hard with the sharpest teeth of the rule of law..
‘’ with security in place” is the operative phrase here. We thought we had some security at the capital on January 6. We had senators running for their lives. When you have crazies, there’s no way to have security in place. Sorry, not wanting to be disagreeable, I just think we have to move quickly to get Trump in front of a jury with a solid case. I think that’s happening in March is it not?
That’s awful. Maybe it won’t shut down. McCarthy has to understand he’s going to be ousted anyway probably much soon than later. He should go ahead and move that cannonball out of the way to save the American people and his very soul.
Re: the MAL docs case...there is constantly more action outside *Judge* Cannon's courtroom than within it, as torpor and inactivity mark the halting progress of the case. Still no "Garcia" hearing, no evident rulings yet on the admissibility of Witness Tavera's testimony from the DC grand jury...just major stasis across the board, and no (public) indication that SC Smith wants Cannon to pull her finger out. Regrettably, this particular trial is proceeding in the manner that many had foreseen - a deliberate slow-walking by the judge, allowing tRump delay after delay. What if anything can JackSmith in fact
If by, “The next time someone tells you Joe Biden is old,” you mean all the complicit mainstream media, not just the rightwing nutjobs, I’ll be sure to let them know that Martha Stewart says these classified note cards double as great recipe cards to gift your friends for the holidays....
Exactly. It is as if they, in their "impartiallity"are creating the the question in the first place. Few people think he is too old until they hear that people think he is too old in the news. Same goes for the accomplishments of his administrtion. They never say how great the economy is doing, or the record low unemployment, but they somehow report on people thiking he is doing a bad job.
Well of course, they never tell people how great a job he is doing, which, in itself, is NEWS!!!!!
Halibut are born with eyes on each side, but most migrate to one (top) side with maturity. Fox News and their acolytes never mature and end up with eyeballs on each side. Just a technical note. This causes bothsidesism - a medical condition that can be corrected with education.
Joyce was probably just channeling John Mitchell, Nixon’s corrupt Attorney General. With so much crimeing going on it’s easy to transpose one criminal’s name for another. But in this case, Ms.Michael is our hero and Mitchell is still our scumbag. Just to be clear.
There likely won’t be any sort of gag order as it theoretically could delay things…but each time an inappropriate remark is made, the judge could move the trial UP!
I'm really frustrated that the Judge hasn't stepped in and ruled Trump is endangering the jury pool and he must be stopped immediately! Why is she letting it drag on like this??? Apparently, tomorrow the Defense is supposed to file something, then who knows after that? Is the fix in with this judge, too, like Canon?
The Independent article points out that Milley is on the government's witness list in the classified-documents case (aka the Mar-a-Lago case).
So, two observations: First, if Inmate P011... thinks he's going to scare Milley off, he's got another think coming. More important, and you lawyers out there please correct me if I'm off base here, but what's reported sure seems like an open-and-shut, slam-dunk instance of witness intimidation.
As I read this post, I get the feeling of a bad dream that I can't escape. Each of these stories and cases are like a dead whale washed up on the beach, slowly rotting in the sun; motion after motion, issue after issue, the faint promise of an eventual trial date that could be delayed many months and even years. Like the whale, they remain in front of us, smelling ever worse, as they eventually devolve to a pile of bleached bones and the passers-by have to work to recognize the remains of what was once the whale. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The biggest problem I have with the Clarence Thomas attending Koch Brother events is that it is the Koch Brothers or it's Harlan Crow or some other MEMBER OF CITIZENS UNITED, the ultra wealthy group that some judicial body voted could remain secret with their huge donation amounts, etc. Oh, yes, that was the Supreme Court that voted for Citizens United to be a secret donor organization. As for the Koch Brothers saying there was nothing wrong with Thomas attending to give a talk or whatever; my reading said that NO CAMERAS were allowed, so we don't know except for the people who worked the events some of who have spilled the Koch beans. When you have to operate in secret, there are usually nefarious reasons for that, and none of them are GOOD for the rest of us. carry on
I'm curious what the chain of command is if SCOTUS refuses to come up with a code of conduct. They are claiming Congress has no power to impose one or regulate them. I thought the purpose of "balance of power" was for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to watch over each other? Who can impose compliance? Is the system we have relied on for so many years falling apart because too much of it was on the honor system, and we are short on honorable people?
Congress in fact does have the power. It has ruled several times on the size of the court, on the cases the court can and cannot rule on, and other items regarding the administration and operation of the court. The only thing congress cannot intervene on is the actual specific decisions by the court.
Joyce is correct by stating that voting is the only way to reign in Clarence Thomas. And call your reps and the President, and ask them to increase the number of justices on the court. (before all regulations which safeguard us in this country are gone.)
Get out and vote a significant majority of Democrats into the Senate - a "filibuster-proof" majority as was done in 2008, and many things will become possible.
This is exactly what I'm hoping for!
norms... the norms we depended on are eroding.
Wow! That’s an eye opener.
My understanding is that, where complex legislation is concerned, Congress often leaves the drafting of the specifics up to the applicable agencies, whose staff have a much better idea of what's needed than the legislators do. So the distinction between what's actually in the statute and what's part of the implementation can be very fuzzy. Are the anti-regulators being strict constructionists about all this and insisting that if something isn't in the legislation itself, it's invalid?
My understanding is that somewhat akin to Tubby’s stymie of the military advancement issue, the Koch group et al wish to have all issues decided by Congress, an attempt to thoroughly throw sand into the cogs of legislation. A nonfunctional Federal Government is their end game.
But they're taking advantage of a vulnerability in the congressional process. That's what I'm asking about.
Sorry I wasn’t more clear. Yes. That’s exactly their aim.
Yes.
My loathing for these people seems to have no limits.
TC, Correct me if I’m wrong, but my understanding is that Congress only can intervene on statutory rulings like Ledbetter, contrary to constitutional rulings.
I think you are right, but I am not a lawyer.
TC, Nor am I. Perhaps one of our attorney subscribers will comment.
What is the difference?
@TutoneSF, Contrary to a constitutional ruling based on interpretation of the Constitution, a statutory ruling is based on interpretation of a statute, that is, a law or legislation. While the former is final, unless the Constitution is amended or the Court reverses its ruling, Congress can intervene in the latter, for example, by rewriting the statute.
TCinLA - The edges and corners of "power" seem to be showing these days. Subpoenas (Jordon), peaceful transfer of power, following SCOTUS rulings (ie gerrymandering), and Congress over SCOTUS to name a few. It just seems that "nope" is becoming a strategy, and the consequences are thin if any. Or is there just no appetite to apply them?
Too bad the Congress forgot to rule on the unconstitutionality of citizens united
But still - Congress may have power and regulate, but who shows up to handcuff SCOTUS if they ignore a new code? Do they get impeached or indicted? Who brings the charges, Congress or the people?
I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, our outrages about SCOTUS fall more under breaches of ethics, and SCOTUS is not subject to external ethics enforcement. Charges/indictment would be brought for having broken the law, which they cleverly skirt. Congress does not currently have the political will to impeach even the most egregious offender, Clarence Thomas.
The "chain of command" line of authority does not point us to fixes for SCOTUS as much as the "balance of power" does. As we painfully learn more and more how rogue and corrupt our current SCOTUS is, the fixes will have to come from Congress, which means We the People raising our voices to demand code of ethics, expand the Court, and possibly term limits. If the Court is expanded, then the executive branch can step in with nominations.
It's not that we are short of honorable people. It's just that the former White House occupant, the present traitor, has set the inexcusable example that it is permissible to act in a dishonorable fashion no matter what damage it causes and who it hurts. They call it the "bully pulpit" for a reason, and it should never be handed over to a bully, let alone a traitor to the Constitution and America.
Unfortunately, new guardrails will have to be enacted to prevent those bad actors from causing more damage by disregarding the "honorable thing to do". But it remains that people must be careful who they vote for and pay attention to what they do, not what they say. There are still honorable people out there willing to serve. Vote them in, and get rid of the dishonorable trash.
Just to clarify an erroneous assumption here: the word "bully" meant something different in the early 20th century than how we use the word now. It was originally a positive term of affection or admiration, dating from the 1600s. (New Oxford American Dictionary: "... origin late 16th century (originally of a person meaning ‘admirable, gallant, jolly’."
The current usage dates from the mid 19th century, and even then, esp in North America, 'continued to be used to refer to something well-done or a compliment. A job well done was "bully". So Teddy Roosevelt's "Bully Pulpit" described something that was seen as a good thing: a position from which to promote social goods.
I have no idea what the process was that led to bully being seen as a negative force. But could conjecture that many of TR's ideas were resented by people who resented his attempts at governmental reform. The use of bully in the sense we now think of it is largely a North American thing. Other English speaking countries still often use it as complimentary.
"Bully" did once mean 'good going'. In America, by almost everyone's understanding of the word, it is now associated with those who push others around detrimentally, or as the dictionary puts it, to hurt or frighten someone weaker.
I stand corrected as to what "Bully Pulpit" means. I hope in the future of this country, it can once again carry it's original meaning.
Thanks for the clarification! I love being educated!
Article III, Section 2. paragraph two. Clearly says SCOTUS is subject to oversight and rules from Congress.
Thanks for the location, Gene. Seems Thomas is intent on some interpretation here.
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution (love this site)
They'll have to argue it but given that we have three branches none of which is completely independent, I think that stretches to the conclusion that Congress can regulate SCOTUS and has in the past, increasing and decreasing the number of judges is only one example. But the idea of any institution having the LAST word on its own conduct flies in the face of reason common sense or the common good.
Yes - that's a check without the balance; fox and henhouse (sorry Joyce).
All the above. Balance of power is being called into question. We don’t have honorable people on the court with recent justices selected from a list put forward by The Federalist Society, The Heritage Action Fund, Leonard Leo, etc. by a president who served them, not the citizens who vote.
It is clear to this reader that the U.S. democracy is facing serious challenges by extremists driven by religious dogma, anti-regulation capitalism, and a SCOTUS writing opinions based not on constitutional law and principles but rather personal agendas. We are faced with a civil upheaval promoted by parties, organizations, and individuals who are determined to not let their moment in the sun pass before the curtain falls for them, our democracy, our environment and our civil and voting rights - hoping and aggressively working to advance their dogmatic ideology. We are, in essence, fighting a civil war without drawing arms but rather wrestling to the ground one or the other side of this most polarized and chaotic divide. There is no question in my mind that power and greed are leading and misleading the American citizens. I trust they will fail at some point soon.
Yes, nicely put. I agree except the trust part; I can only hope they will fail.
He can be impeached but not with this Congress. Congress can pass ethics laws for all branches and has limited executive powers in the past. They can also pass laws which in effect neutralize a SOCTUS decision. Each branch’s checks and balances are tailored by the Articles in the Constitution.
My night is now complete. WORDLE in 3/6 and “The Week Ahead.” Goodnight Joyce. Goodnight Chickens. Goodnight Moon.
Goodnight, Kimberly!
And Good Night Matilda too.
3, 4 me 2 💃
Trust the young women who have been ensnared in trump's cabal. They will speak their truth! And that will expose trump. Thank you Cassidy, Molly et al.
CASSIDY HUTCHINSON will be interviewed Monday Night, 9/25, on Rachel Maddow's msnbc Show.
9 PM Eastern.
With regard to the Raimondo case, which seeks to overthrow the court's judgement in Chevron, affirming the power of agencies to set rules and administer the laws (which Thomas wrote) Mehdi Hasan had tape this evening of Thomas speaking to one of these billionaire conferences, in which he said that just because a judge ruled one way in a previous case, no one should assume that the judge's views on the matter "had not evolved" when a subsequent case on that issue comes before the court.
In other words, Thomas announced he will reverse the ruling he wrote in Chevron, and happily throw "the administrative state" into a tailspin for the assistance of his benefactors.
If ever there was a clear case for recusal, this is it - he's said everything but "I will reverse myself" on this case.
He said everything except: “Show me the money.”
Answer: "Congratulations, you're still my Judge".
So, since Roberts is the Chief of the Court, can he not “force” Thomas to recuse himself? Not that he would, but let’s say for saving face, do you think he has the authority do that?
He can recommend it, but recusal is always the choice of the specific judge, as I understand it.
Well then, why have a chief? In Indian tribes, the Chief is the leader, the organizer, the one in charge. In the case of SCOTUS, no one is driving the train.
Crow, Koch, etc. are calling the tune.
In my husband’s tribe the Chief is not all powerful and instead works in conjunction with the Council. Obviously as we’ve seen in the past some Chiefs have more power than others, Warren and Burger come to mind. It seems apparent Roberts has no such charisma.
Thank you for clarifying a common assumption among non-Indians about the role of a so-called "chief" in many, perhaps most American indigenous nations. The term "Chief" was applied by white men who could not grasp the processes of decision-making- which tended toward a more communal process. Among many, the Council of Women had the ultimate say, but European mind couldn't even grasp that, let alone recognize it.
We were able to visit the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian a couple of weeks ago. The disconnect between the US Government’s idea of society and landownership and that of the Native Tribes was an overarching theme.
Roberts is a coward.
Unless there is a rule with specific details that - if met - require recusal.
What about Sheldon Whitehouse’ investigations regarding the Ethics rules.
His proposals are excellent.
Remember, they’re all on the same side.
“Every time Trump makes a public statement, he seems to be walking a perilous tightrope between confession and additional obstruction of justice. And it’s the public who he continues to place in peril.”
This pair of sentences underscores the perception of a weak court..He has crossed the line long ago..he is no longer being treated like any other criminal defendant..There is only one course of action to be taken at this juncture..Trump must have his bail forfeited and he must be remanded into custody..He is making a mockery of the court..
Jack Smith is concerned that the MAGA will go nuts if Trump is taken into custody. That’s why I Jack Smith has been pushing for an as soon as possible trial. I recall reading this in someone’s analysis – it could’ve been Joyce – sorry I’m brain dead tonight and can’t recall who said this. The question did come up in a prior post in this sub stack, when Trump posted on social media “if you come for me I’m coming for you. “May not be quoting exactly his words, but that was the general gist of it. An analyst said (as the above), that. Jack Smith was worried about MAGA reaction to putting Trump in jail. The judges response was that she would have no choice, except to move the trial date forward.
That's what he said.
Got that right Valere, take care & get some rest.
Yes, finally sleeping.
The maga crowd are cowards, they are hangers on to the coattails if their bully..Take him down a couple of pegs by remanding him and 99% of them will not do a thing..the 1% who attempt an action will be met with more force than they try to dish out..They are not unlike the pilot fish Lindsay Graham that Steve Schmidt speaks of..There is only one way to deal with a bully.. You punch them in the face and break their nose.. For this matter, to not jail Trump at this point is a big mistake..10X bigger a mistake than the CNN and NBC disasters..
Thank you Sam. I like Steve Schmidt as well. I do believe Jack Smith's specialty has been dealing with the ultra-bullies of the planet (he has put presidents of countries in jail). I think that is why, even with a seemingly changing legal scene, he is moving forward as quickly as possible. He has just brought in a prosecutor from the Hague - a former buddy from his years working there. And it is Jack Smith's life and that of his colleagues that has been threatened, so he's plenty concerned. It's all above my paygrade, but they (judges/DOJ) may be considering the damage the 1% may do. Trump is bleeting to the masses to get votes because he is afraid of jail. The FBI is watching the 1%. It's just my personal opinion, but I believe following the process to get Trump in front of a jury ASAP is best. If they throw him in jail now, it will surely delay that process: and that is the end-game goal, to try him in court. He is horrid. Trump always has a plan B up his sleeve: he might be pushing to be put in jail to gain the right to claim delays. And it would surely rile the MAGA.
Valere, I think you make cogent points..however, to me, and with all respect, they are from a position of fear..Since the beginning of this whole thing we have been operating from a place of too much caution..DOJ dragged its feet to begin investigating, It was only when Smith came aboard that things began to move..As I, to the best of my ability try to assess these cases, I don't see how jailing him for contempt will slow down anything..I don't see how it changes the trial date..Conversely, I believe it creates the necessity to speed things up..A few days in an orange jumpsuit and a trial date moved up two weeks as a punch in the nose of the real world..If the 1% decide to take some kind of action that is on them..At the end of the day, if he is to be dealt with like any other criminal defendant, then this must be done..Otherwise, all of the talk and admonitions from the court are just gaslighting bullshit..And we have no rule of law..enough already..
We have agreed that Trump is horrid. But he is allegedly a criminal - so he has to have his day in court. It winds along very slowly but I believe justice prevails. We certainly had a rule of law when he was convicted of rape in the case of E Jean Carroll, and that took a long long time. In my opinion, it’s better to follow the rule of law and let it takes its course. And the judges and Jack Smith are thinking about how to get the case into court as quickly as possible so as to cause the least amount of havoc from the MAGA. I’m not saying you’re wrong. I’m not saying I’m right not at all. We are dealing with a faction that believes the Earth is flat. We need to use our energy to support getting Biden elected. I respect your opinion, but the hammer down for Trump has to come from the jury. I’m sharing Joyce’s column with all of my friends all the time. We need to educate, educate, educate. And follow the rule of law. I’m not saying throwing Trump in jail for a day or two would be the wrong thing to do, I just wonder if moving to put Trump in jail now would play into his hands. He thrives on drama.
The most interesting event for me is that Jack Smith brought in a war crimes prosecutor. So what does that mean? And why did Jack bring him in now? I think he’s (Jack Smith) is about to make some waves around some kind of extra judicial killings. With a mindset like Trump, anything is possible. And by the way, I’ve always wondered why they brought in Jack Smith from the Hague anyway. They obviously wanted someone with his skill set involving international stuff.
Well, there is a lot to unpack in your remarks..I will for the moment say this regarding jail for Trump..He is still innocent and convicted of nothing..Merely in Contempt of Court..Being dealt with as you and I would be..Period..The concept of "No one is above the law" is pandering and gaslighting if he is not held to the same standard as anyone one else..I do not stand in fear of what the flat Earthers might do if the law is strictly followed as the AG likes to say "Without fear or favor".
With security in place for those who have been threatened, Trump in jail is the right visual. A little humiliation should cause him to lose some of the MAGA who talk a big game but will not follow through. I hope.
Karen, your rational is correct..It is as I see it as well.. We have got to stop cowering in a corner..and bite down hard with the sharpest teeth of the rule of law..
‘’ with security in place” is the operative phrase here. We thought we had some security at the capital on January 6. We had senators running for their lives. When you have crazies, there’s no way to have security in place. Sorry, not wanting to be disagreeable, I just think we have to move quickly to get Trump in front of a jury with a solid case. I think that’s happening in March is it not?
Don’t forget us contractors if the government shuts down. We don’t get the back pay. ☹️
That’s awful. Maybe it won’t shut down. McCarthy has to understand he’s going to be ousted anyway probably much soon than later. He should go ahead and move that cannonball out of the way to save the American people and his very soul.
He doesn’t have a soul. That was sold a while ago.
Re: the MAL docs case...there is constantly more action outside *Judge* Cannon's courtroom than within it, as torpor and inactivity mark the halting progress of the case. Still no "Garcia" hearing, no evident rulings yet on the admissibility of Witness Tavera's testimony from the DC grand jury...just major stasis across the board, and no (public) indication that SC Smith wants Cannon to pull her finger out. Regrettably, this particular trial is proceeding in the manner that many had foreseen - a deliberate slow-walking by the judge, allowing tRump delay after delay. What if anything can JackSmith in fact
do?
Well we don’t yet know what Smith could do but his every action is always timely.
If by, “The next time someone tells you Joe Biden is old,” you mean all the complicit mainstream media, not just the rightwing nutjobs, I’ll be sure to let them know that Martha Stewart says these classified note cards double as great recipe cards to gift your friends for the holidays....
Exactly. It is as if they, in their "impartiallity"are creating the the question in the first place. Few people think he is too old until they hear that people think he is too old in the news. Same goes for the accomplishments of his administrtion. They never say how great the economy is doing, or the record low unemployment, but they somehow report on people thiking he is doing a bad job.
Well of course, they never tell people how great a job he is doing, which, in itself, is NEWS!!!!!
Journalism’s “both sides” is like a halibut - no eyes on the muddy side.
You got that right.
Halibut are born with eyes on each side, but most migrate to one (top) side with maturity. Fox News and their acolytes never mature and end up with eyeballs on each side. Just a technical note. This causes bothsidesism - a medical condition that can be corrected with education.
Love Martha! She is so practical.
Cute.
LOL!
Thank you, Joyce. This is a daunting set of issues in the week(s) ahead. Thank you for being our anchor in these rough waters! Have a great week.
Joyce: there is an unintended typo in one of the paragraphs above in which Michael is referred to as Mitchell.
Excellent summaries as usual;I know I speak for everyone: we all appreciate your scholarship!
Joyce was probably just channeling John Mitchell, Nixon’s corrupt Attorney General. With so much crimeing going on it’s easy to transpose one criminal’s name for another. But in this case, Ms.Michael is our hero and Mitchell is still our scumbag. Just to be clear.
It is--so sorry. Now fixed.
There likely won’t be any sort of gag order as it theoretically could delay things…but each time an inappropriate remark is made, the judge could move the trial UP!
I'm really frustrated that the Judge hasn't stepped in and ruled Trump is endangering the jury pool and he must be stopped immediately! Why is she letting it drag on like this??? Apparently, tomorrow the Defense is supposed to file something, then who knows after that? Is the fix in with this judge, too, like Canon?
Maybe the judge is trying to avoid a delay.
Re Inmate P01135809 and the possibility of a gag order: Robert Hubbell's column this evening points out reporting saying Inmate P011... in a veiled, indirect sort of way threatened Mark Milley's life. I don't want to misrepresent the matter or cover the full context here; read the reporting for yourself at https://roberthubbell.substack.com/p/this-is-getting-ridiculous?utm_campaign=email-post&r=9fqy2&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
and
https://news.yahoo.com/trump-suggests-mark-milley-executed-063701241.html.
The Independent article points out that Milley is on the government's witness list in the classified-documents case (aka the Mar-a-Lago case).
So, two observations: First, if Inmate P011... thinks he's going to scare Milley off, he's got another think coming. More important, and you lawyers out there please correct me if I'm off base here, but what's reported sure seems like an open-and-shut, slam-dunk instance of witness intimidation.
Update: Heather Cox Richardson discusses the issue fully at https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-24-2023?utm_campaign=email-post&r=9fqy2&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email.
You betcha.
I wonder if there will come a time when the news won't be solely about the former president. 🤔 At this rate, I guess it will be a long time.
Thank you, Joyce, for keeping me updated. I could never pull it together the way you do !!
So sick and tired of hearing his voice and seeing his face!!
He's a tabloid newspaper's dream; right up there with the Kardashians
😀
What I haven't heard: A justice ⚖️ stand up and declare that they will voluntarily adhere to the Code of Ethics for all other 'legal' people.
As I read this post, I get the feeling of a bad dream that I can't escape. Each of these stories and cases are like a dead whale washed up on the beach, slowly rotting in the sun; motion after motion, issue after issue, the faint promise of an eventual trial date that could be delayed many months and even years. Like the whale, they remain in front of us, smelling ever worse, as they eventually devolve to a pile of bleached bones and the passers-by have to work to recognize the remains of what was once the whale. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The biggest problem I have with the Clarence Thomas attending Koch Brother events is that it is the Koch Brothers or it's Harlan Crow or some other MEMBER OF CITIZENS UNITED, the ultra wealthy group that some judicial body voted could remain secret with their huge donation amounts, etc. Oh, yes, that was the Supreme Court that voted for Citizens United to be a secret donor organization. As for the Koch Brothers saying there was nothing wrong with Thomas attending to give a talk or whatever; my reading said that NO CAMERAS were allowed, so we don't know except for the people who worked the events some of who have spilled the Koch beans. When you have to operate in secret, there are usually nefarious reasons for that, and none of them are GOOD for the rest of us. carry on