Supreme Court Anyone?
- Thread starter printer
- Start date
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court to adopt ethics code after scrutiny of undisclosed gifts
The Supreme Court indicated Monday it will adopt a code of conduct amid heightened scrutiny over the high court’s standards when it comes to undisclosed gifts and trips.
In a statement released alongside the 15-page code, the justices said the court’s rules and principles are, for the most part, “not new.” However, “codification” of existing principles is meant to clear up concerns about the justices operating without oversight.
“The absence of a Code … 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,” the statement reads. “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.”
The new code details five “canons,” or rules, each of the nine justices agreed to abide by, many drawing lines in the sand on political activity and fundraising.
One of those principals directs any Supreme Court justice to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” That means that family, social, political, financial or other relationships should not influence official conduct or judgment, the code reads.
“A Justice should neither knowingly lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the Justice or others nor knowingly convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the Justice,” the code reads.
The new code describes instances where justices should decline speaking engagements, including where an event is sponsored by or associated with a political entity or a group with financial interest in the outcome of a case before the court. It also directs the justices — and their family members, including spouses — to comply with restrictions imposed by the Judicial Conference on gift acceptance.
The Supreme Court’s ethics came under fire after a series of reports detailed various undisclosed luxury trips, gifts and questionable extrajudicial activities involving multiple justices. Those revelations increased interest in congressional oversight of the justices’ behavior.
Among those notable reports was one by ProPublica earlier this year, which reported that Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose travel and other financial ties with wealthy conservative donors, including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers. Thomas’ wife, longtime right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, also reignited questions about her husband’s impartiality after attending the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
ProPublica also reported that Justice Samuel Alito accepted a flight on the private jet of billionaire Paul Singer, who has had cases before the court. Alito was flown to Alaska on a private jet to take an expensive fishing trip in 2008 with the hedge fund billionaire, and he did not report the trip on his financial disclosures. Leonard Leo, a conservative judicial activist, organized the trip, according to the news outlet.
And the Associated Press reported accusations that Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff pushed colleges to purchase her books when she traveled to their schools. Sotomayor previously received criticism for not recusing herself from multiple cases involving Penguin Random House, which published her books and provided her payments totaling more than $3 million, according to her financial disclosures.
As part of the code’s implementation, Chief Justice John Roberts directed court officers to examine “best practices,” drawing on some federal and state court rules.
The ethics code marks the first time the Supreme Court has made official any rules governing the nation’s highest court.
thehill.com
The Supreme Court indicated Monday it will adopt a code of conduct amid heightened scrutiny over the high court’s standards when it comes to undisclosed gifts and trips.
In a statement released alongside the 15-page code, the justices said the court’s rules and principles are, for the most part, “not new.” However, “codification” of existing principles is meant to clear up concerns about the justices operating without oversight.
“The absence of a Code … 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,” the statement reads. “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.”
The new code details five “canons,” or rules, each of the nine justices agreed to abide by, many drawing lines in the sand on political activity and fundraising.
One of those principals directs any Supreme Court justice to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” That means that family, social, political, financial or other relationships should not influence official conduct or judgment, the code reads.
“A Justice should neither knowingly lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the Justice or others nor knowingly convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the Justice,” the code reads.
The new code describes instances where justices should decline speaking engagements, including where an event is sponsored by or associated with a political entity or a group with financial interest in the outcome of a case before the court. It also directs the justices — and their family members, including spouses — to comply with restrictions imposed by the Judicial Conference on gift acceptance.
The Supreme Court’s ethics came under fire after a series of reports detailed various undisclosed luxury trips, gifts and questionable extrajudicial activities involving multiple justices. Those revelations increased interest in congressional oversight of the justices’ behavior.
Among those notable reports was one by ProPublica earlier this year, which reported that Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose travel and other financial ties with wealthy conservative donors, including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers. Thomas’ wife, longtime right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, also reignited questions about her husband’s impartiality after attending the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
ProPublica also reported that Justice Samuel Alito accepted a flight on the private jet of billionaire Paul Singer, who has had cases before the court. Alito was flown to Alaska on a private jet to take an expensive fishing trip in 2008 with the hedge fund billionaire, and he did not report the trip on his financial disclosures. Leonard Leo, a conservative judicial activist, organized the trip, according to the news outlet.
And the Associated Press reported accusations that Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff pushed colleges to purchase her books when she traveled to their schools. Sotomayor previously received criticism for not recusing herself from multiple cases involving Penguin Random House, which published her books and provided her payments totaling more than $3 million, according to her financial disclosures.
As part of the code’s implementation, Chief Justice John Roberts directed court officers to examine “best practices,” drawing on some federal and state court rules.
The ethics code marks the first time the Supreme Court has made official any rules governing the nation’s highest court.
Supreme Court to adopt ethics code after scrutiny of undisclosed gifts
The Supreme Court indicated Monday it will adopt a code of conduct amid heightened scrutiny over the high court’s standards when it comes to undisclosed gifts and trips. In a statement released alo…
thehill.com
Nugnewbie
Well-Known Member
Toothless.Supreme Court to adopt ethics code after scrutiny of undisclosed gifts
The Supreme Court indicated Monday it will adopt a code of conduct amid heightened scrutiny over the high court’s standards when it comes to undisclosed gifts and trips.
In a statement released alongside the 15-page code, the justices said the court’s rules and principles are, for the most part, “not new.” However, “codification” of existing principles is meant to clear up concerns about the justices operating without oversight.
“The absence of a Code … 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,” the statement reads. “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.”
The new code details five “canons,” or rules, each of the nine justices agreed to abide by, many drawing lines in the sand on political activity and fundraising.
One of those principals directs any Supreme Court justice to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” That means that family, social, political, financial or other relationships should not influence official conduct or judgment, the code reads.
“A Justice should neither knowingly lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the Justice or others nor knowingly convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the Justice,” the code reads.
The new code describes instances where justices should decline speaking engagements, including where an event is sponsored by or associated with a political entity or a group with financial interest in the outcome of a case before the court. It also directs the justices — and their family members, including spouses — to comply with restrictions imposed by the Judicial Conference on gift acceptance.
The Supreme Court’s ethics came under fire after a series of reports detailed various undisclosed luxury trips, gifts and questionable extrajudicial activities involving multiple justices. Those revelations increased interest in congressional oversight of the justices’ behavior.
Among those notable reports was one by ProPublica earlier this year, which reported that Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose travel and other financial ties with wealthy conservative donors, including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers. Thomas’ wife, longtime right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, also reignited questions about her husband’s impartiality after attending the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
ProPublica also reported that Justice Samuel Alito accepted a flight on the private jet of billionaire Paul Singer, who has had cases before the court. Alito was flown to Alaska on a private jet to take an expensive fishing trip in 2008 with the hedge fund billionaire, and he did not report the trip on his financial disclosures. Leonard Leo, a conservative judicial activist, organized the trip, according to the news outlet.
And the Associated Press reported accusations that Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff pushed colleges to purchase her books when she traveled to their schools. Sotomayor previously received criticism for not recusing herself from multiple cases involving Penguin Random House, which published her books and provided her payments totaling more than $3 million, according to her financial disclosures.
As part of the code’s implementation, Chief Justice John Roberts directed court officers to examine “best practices,” drawing on some federal and state court rules.
The ethics code marks the first time the Supreme Court has made official any rules governing the nation’s highest court.
Supreme Court to adopt ethics code after scrutiny of undisclosed gifts
The Supreme Court indicated Monday it will adopt a code of conduct amid heightened scrutiny over the high court’s standards when it comes to undisclosed gifts and trips. In a statement released alo…
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Too little too late as far as the senate is concerned, they will still investigate Thomas at least and perhaps Alito. Maybe if it was accompanied by a couple of retirements (resignations) it might carry some weight with the senate. Thomas's sugar daddies are gonna face investigation and questioning under oath and maybe even Clarence and his wife. Force him to resign or embarrass him into it and perhaps indict him too, since there appears to be a criminal case or at least a tax one.Supreme Court to adopt ethics code after scrutiny of undisclosed gifts
The Supreme Court indicated Monday it will adopt a code of conduct amid heightened scrutiny over the high court’s standards when it comes to undisclosed gifts and trips.
In a statement released alongside the 15-page code, the justices said the court’s rules and principles are, for the most part, “not new.” However, “codification” of existing principles is meant to clear up concerns about the justices operating without oversight.
“The absence of a Code … 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,” the statement reads. “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.”
The new code details five “canons,” or rules, each of the nine justices agreed to abide by, many drawing lines in the sand on political activity and fundraising.
One of those principals directs any Supreme Court justice to “avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities.” That means that family, social, political, financial or other relationships should not influence official conduct or judgment, the code reads.
“A Justice should neither knowingly lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the Justice or others nor knowingly convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the Justice,” the code reads.
The new code describes instances where justices should decline speaking engagements, including where an event is sponsored by or associated with a political entity or a group with financial interest in the outcome of a case before the court. It also directs the justices — and their family members, including spouses — to comply with restrictions imposed by the Judicial Conference on gift acceptance.
The Supreme Court’s ethics came under fire after a series of reports detailed various undisclosed luxury trips, gifts and questionable extrajudicial activities involving multiple justices. Those revelations increased interest in congressional oversight of the justices’ behavior.
Among those notable reports was one by ProPublica earlier this year, which reported that Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose travel and other financial ties with wealthy conservative donors, including Harlan Crow and the Koch brothers. Thomas’ wife, longtime right-wing activist Ginni Thomas, also reignited questions about her husband’s impartiality after attending the pro-Trump “Stop the Steal” rally that preceded the Jan. 6 riot at the Capitol.
ProPublica also reported that Justice Samuel Alito accepted a flight on the private jet of billionaire Paul Singer, who has had cases before the court. Alito was flown to Alaska on a private jet to take an expensive fishing trip in 2008 with the hedge fund billionaire, and he did not report the trip on his financial disclosures. Leonard Leo, a conservative judicial activist, organized the trip, according to the news outlet.
And the Associated Press reported accusations that Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s staff pushed colleges to purchase her books when she traveled to their schools. Sotomayor previously received criticism for not recusing herself from multiple cases involving Penguin Random House, which published her books and provided her payments totaling more than $3 million, according to her financial disclosures.
As part of the code’s implementation, Chief Justice John Roberts directed court officers to examine “best practices,” drawing on some federal and state court rules.
The ethics code marks the first time the Supreme Court has made official any rules governing the nation’s highest court.
Supreme Court to adopt ethics code after scrutiny of undisclosed gifts
The Supreme Court indicated Monday it will adopt a code of conduct amid heightened scrutiny over the high court’s standards when it comes to undisclosed gifts and trips. In a statement released alo…
Nugnewbie
Well-Known Member
Hard to embarrass someone who seems to have no shame for what has come to light already.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It doesn't mean you shouldn't try and use the simple truth to drag the fucker through shit along with his billionaire cronies who tried to buy the court. As long as you are dealing in truth and facts fairly presented it is ok, if he won't do the right thing for the court and the country. Then there are criminal indictments which seem possible in the case of Thomas at least. Though Garland would rather pull his own teeth out than bust a supreme court justice!
Nugnewbie
Well-Known Member
I do agree you should try. And yes, hopefully it leads to some sort of accountability. The SC operates as though they are above the law.
printer
Well-Known Member
Almost time to get rid of the institution?
Supreme Court refuses to revive Florida drag show law
The Supreme Court refused Florida’s emergency request to partially reinstate its law targeting drag shows Thursday, preventing the state from enforcing the legislation, for now.
A federal judge previously struck down the law, finding it unconstitutional. As it appeals, the Republican-led state in the meantime sought to keep enforcing the legislation except against the restaurant that brought the lawsuit.
Three of the court’s conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — publicly dissented and voted to revive the law. Two other conservatives — Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with the majority to rule against Florida, but the duo indicated their votes don’t signify whether they believe the law is constitutional.
Signed into law by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in May, the legislation makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly admit a child to an “adult live performance,” partially defined as shows that depict “lewd conduct” or “lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.”
Hamburger Mary’s, an Orlando restaurant and bar that hosts drag shows, quickly sued. The establishment successfully convinced a Clinton-appointed federal judge to invalidate the law by ruling it violates the First Amendment. Finding the law unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the judge barred Florida from enforcing it against not only Hamburger Mary’s but also anyone else in the state. Florida then asked to partially freeze the ruling as the state’s appeal proceeds, so it could enforce the law on all establishments other than Hamburger Mary’s. Lower courts denied the request, leading to the state’s emergency application at the Supreme Court.
In his first interview following the ruling, Hamburger Mary’s owner John Paonessa told The Hill he was “absolutely thrilled” about his victory. “It’s unbelievable what you can do when you stand up for what’s right, and the courts see what it is,” Paonessa said. “That’s what’s happening everywhere, so I’m glad we were able to do it.”
The case now returns to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the full appeal. After a final ruling, the case could ultimately return to the justices.
Kavanaugh, in a statement joined by Barrett, said Florida’s request didn’t meet one of the criteria the justices look for in an emergency application: whether the Supreme Court has a “reasonable probability” of eventually agreeing to hear the issue on the merits. “The State has not made that showing here,” Kavanaugh wrote. But Kavanaugh cautioned that Florida’s emergency request dealt with the scope of the lower court’s injunction, not whether the law itself is constitutional. “Florida’s stay application to this Court does not raise that First Amendment issue. Therefore, the Court’s denial of the stay indicates nothing about our view on whether Florida’s new law violates the First Amendment,” he wrote.
Paonessa said the ruling makes him optimistic Hamburger Mary’s will prevail in the end. “We’re taking a stand against the state, the governor trying to erase one-by-one and step-by-step, trying to erase the LGBTQI+ community,” he said. “This sets a precedent, if we could win this, that we’re not going to stand for rulings where our rights are being violated,” he continued. “This is happening all across the country and other states as well, where these same laws are trying to be enacted. And we’re fighting back against all of these states, and we’re winning.”
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) referenced concerns previously expressed by some of the justices about lower courts exceeding their authority in issuing broad rulings, rather than granting relief to only the plaintiffs. “Hamburger Mary’s suffers no harm from a stay of the injunction only as to nonparties,” Florida wrote in court filings. “Again, an injunction limited to Hamburger Mary’s still protects Hamburger Mary’s fully from the chill that it claims in its complaint.”
thehill.com
Supreme Court refuses to revive Florida drag show law
The Supreme Court refused Florida’s emergency request to partially reinstate its law targeting drag shows Thursday, preventing the state from enforcing the legislation, for now.
A federal judge previously struck down the law, finding it unconstitutional. As it appeals, the Republican-led state in the meantime sought to keep enforcing the legislation except against the restaurant that brought the lawsuit.
Three of the court’s conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — publicly dissented and voted to revive the law. Two other conservatives — Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with the majority to rule against Florida, but the duo indicated their votes don’t signify whether they believe the law is constitutional.
Signed into law by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in May, the legislation makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly admit a child to an “adult live performance,” partially defined as shows that depict “lewd conduct” or “lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.”
Hamburger Mary’s, an Orlando restaurant and bar that hosts drag shows, quickly sued. The establishment successfully convinced a Clinton-appointed federal judge to invalidate the law by ruling it violates the First Amendment. Finding the law unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the judge barred Florida from enforcing it against not only Hamburger Mary’s but also anyone else in the state. Florida then asked to partially freeze the ruling as the state’s appeal proceeds, so it could enforce the law on all establishments other than Hamburger Mary’s. Lower courts denied the request, leading to the state’s emergency application at the Supreme Court.
In his first interview following the ruling, Hamburger Mary’s owner John Paonessa told The Hill he was “absolutely thrilled” about his victory. “It’s unbelievable what you can do when you stand up for what’s right, and the courts see what it is,” Paonessa said. “That’s what’s happening everywhere, so I’m glad we were able to do it.”
The case now returns to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the full appeal. After a final ruling, the case could ultimately return to the justices.
Kavanaugh, in a statement joined by Barrett, said Florida’s request didn’t meet one of the criteria the justices look for in an emergency application: whether the Supreme Court has a “reasonable probability” of eventually agreeing to hear the issue on the merits. “The State has not made that showing here,” Kavanaugh wrote. But Kavanaugh cautioned that Florida’s emergency request dealt with the scope of the lower court’s injunction, not whether the law itself is constitutional. “Florida’s stay application to this Court does not raise that First Amendment issue. Therefore, the Court’s denial of the stay indicates nothing about our view on whether Florida’s new law violates the First Amendment,” he wrote.
Paonessa said the ruling makes him optimistic Hamburger Mary’s will prevail in the end. “We’re taking a stand against the state, the governor trying to erase one-by-one and step-by-step, trying to erase the LGBTQI+ community,” he said. “This sets a precedent, if we could win this, that we’re not going to stand for rulings where our rights are being violated,” he continued. “This is happening all across the country and other states as well, where these same laws are trying to be enacted. And we’re fighting back against all of these states, and we’re winning.”
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) referenced concerns previously expressed by some of the justices about lower courts exceeding their authority in issuing broad rulings, rather than granting relief to only the plaintiffs. “Hamburger Mary’s suffers no harm from a stay of the injunction only as to nonparties,” Florida wrote in court filings. “Again, an injunction limited to Hamburger Mary’s still protects Hamburger Mary’s fully from the chill that it claims in its complaint.”
Supreme Court refuses to revive Florida drag show law
The Supreme Court refused Florida’s emergency request to partially reinstate its law targeting drag shows Thursday, preventing the state from enforcing the legislation, for now. A federal judge pre…
thehill.com
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
A frightening look under the hood of how the Federalist Society pulls the strings of their puppets in Scotus. They put a pretty high polish on the corrupt bs that goes on to inform the illiberal decisions coming from Leo’s Eagles.
www.politico.com
‘Plain historical falsehoods’: How amicus briefs bolstered Supreme Court conservatives
A POLITICO review indicates most conservative briefs in high-profile cases have links to a small cadre of activists aligned with Leonard Leo.
www.politico.com
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
As a Canadian, you probably can't understand why a liberal might not want the conservative minority to pack this court and you would be right about that. It's just that I believe elections matter. We got the court we have because elections do matter and conservatives won enough elections at the right time to create this rightward shift in the courts and elsewhere. I don't think the shift is permanent, although that belief depends on the belief that the US electorate won't allow MAGA to dismantle US democracy. If elections do matter then I'm willing to let this court remind the public that they do. With every state law that cuts down rights we used to take for granted, opposition to dominionists and fascists grow. Within a couple of years, their time in power will be over. There is no need to change the system. We need to change who governs it.Almost time to get rid of the institution?
Supreme Court refuses to revive Florida drag show law
The Supreme Court refused Florida’s emergency request to partially reinstate its law targeting drag shows Thursday, preventing the state from enforcing the legislation, for now.
A federal judge previously struck down the law, finding it unconstitutional. As it appeals, the Republican-led state in the meantime sought to keep enforcing the legislation except against the restaurant that brought the lawsuit.
Three of the court’s conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — publicly dissented and voted to revive the law. Two other conservatives — Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with the majority to rule against Florida, but the duo indicated their votes don’t signify whether they believe the law is constitutional.
Signed into law by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) in May, the legislation makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly admit a child to an “adult live performance,” partially defined as shows that depict “lewd conduct” or “lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.”
Hamburger Mary’s, an Orlando restaurant and bar that hosts drag shows, quickly sued. The establishment successfully convinced a Clinton-appointed federal judge to invalidate the law by ruling it violates the First Amendment. Finding the law unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the judge barred Florida from enforcing it against not only Hamburger Mary’s but also anyone else in the state. Florida then asked to partially freeze the ruling as the state’s appeal proceeds, so it could enforce the law on all establishments other than Hamburger Mary’s. Lower courts denied the request, leading to the state’s emergency application at the Supreme Court.
In his first interview following the ruling, Hamburger Mary’s owner John Paonessa told The Hill he was “absolutely thrilled” about his victory. “It’s unbelievable what you can do when you stand up for what’s right, and the courts see what it is,” Paonessa said. “That’s what’s happening everywhere, so I’m glad we were able to do it.”
The case now returns to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the full appeal. After a final ruling, the case could ultimately return to the justices.
Kavanaugh, in a statement joined by Barrett, said Florida’s request didn’t meet one of the criteria the justices look for in an emergency application: whether the Supreme Court has a “reasonable probability” of eventually agreeing to hear the issue on the merits. “The State has not made that showing here,” Kavanaugh wrote. But Kavanaugh cautioned that Florida’s emergency request dealt with the scope of the lower court’s injunction, not whether the law itself is constitutional. “Florida’s stay application to this Court does not raise that First Amendment issue. Therefore, the Court’s denial of the stay indicates nothing about our view on whether Florida’s new law violates the First Amendment,” he wrote.
Paonessa said the ruling makes him optimistic Hamburger Mary’s will prevail in the end. “We’re taking a stand against the state, the governor trying to erase one-by-one and step-by-step, trying to erase the LGBTQI+ community,” he said. “This sets a precedent, if we could win this, that we’re not going to stand for rulings where our rights are being violated,” he continued. “This is happening all across the country and other states as well, where these same laws are trying to be enacted. And we’re fighting back against all of these states, and we’re winning.”
Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody (R) referenced concerns previously expressed by some of the justices about lower courts exceeding their authority in issuing broad rulings, rather than granting relief to only the plaintiffs. “Hamburger Mary’s suffers no harm from a stay of the injunction only as to nonparties,” Florida wrote in court filings. “Again, an injunction limited to Hamburger Mary’s still protects Hamburger Mary’s fully from the chill that it claims in its complaint.”
Supreme Court refuses to revive Florida drag show law
The Supreme Court refused Florida’s emergency request to partially reinstate its law targeting drag shows Thursday, preventing the state from enforcing the legislation, for now. A federal judge pre…
printer
Well-Known Member
Was more tongue in cheek remark. It is not a point of conservatives found themselves in a position to stack the court, they abused the system with not letting Garland get a hearing. The shift is in the SC will stand for years to come. The conservatives (Maga's) do not care about democracy. The others will go along as they are either scared to get primaried. Sure you need a change of who governs, the problem is the right wing does not want to play fair. They know their time is numbered if they do not take action.
printer
Well-Known Member
Whiny boy does not like when others make the rules.
Musk appeals dispute over what he calls SEC’s ‘muzzle’ on free speech rights to Supreme Court
Tech billionaire Elon Musk filed a Supreme Court appeal Thursday to a Securities and Exchange Commission order that he limit public communications about his businesses, claiming that the 2018 agreement is a “muzzle” on his free speech rights.
The case stems from allegations that Musk was influencing the price of Tesla stock with social media posts. Musk agreed to an SEC demand for preapproval from lawyers on posts, but he is now appealing that agreement, calling it unconstitutional.
The appeal, first reported by Reuters, argues that the SEC agreement falls under a “prior restraint” of Musk’s First Amendment speech rights and should be thrown out.
“The pro-approval provision in Mr. Musk’s consent decree … is a quintessential prior restraint that the law forbids,” Musk’s attorneys wrote in the appeal. “It chills Mr. Musk’s speech through never-ending threats of contempt, fines or even imprisonment for otherwise protected speech if not pre-approved to the SEC’s or a court’s satisfaction.”
The 2018 agreement was made after Musk posted on Twitter — before he purchased the site years later — that he intended to make Tesla a private company, resulting in the company’s stock rising.
He was accused of attempting to manipulate Tesla stock prices again in 2021, after he polled his Twitter followers over whether he should sell a 10th of his stock, a move that would have drastically changed the market price.
A federal appeals court shot down his challenge to the agreement in May.
“We see no evidence to support Musk’s contention that the SEC has used the consent decree to conduct bad-faith, harassing investigations of his protected speech,” according to the appeals court ruling. “To the contrary, the record indicates that the SEC has opened just three inquiries into Musk’s tweets since 2018. The first resulted in the consent decree that is the subject of this appeal.”
Musk also faces a separate SEC investigation over his purchase of Twitter, which he renamed to X. The agency sued Musk in October in a bid to force him to testify.
thehill.com
Musk appeals dispute over what he calls SEC’s ‘muzzle’ on free speech rights to Supreme Court
Tech billionaire Elon Musk filed a Supreme Court appeal Thursday to a Securities and Exchange Commission order that he limit public communications about his businesses, claiming that the 2018 agreement is a “muzzle” on his free speech rights.
The case stems from allegations that Musk was influencing the price of Tesla stock with social media posts. Musk agreed to an SEC demand for preapproval from lawyers on posts, but he is now appealing that agreement, calling it unconstitutional.
The appeal, first reported by Reuters, argues that the SEC agreement falls under a “prior restraint” of Musk’s First Amendment speech rights and should be thrown out.
“The pro-approval provision in Mr. Musk’s consent decree … is a quintessential prior restraint that the law forbids,” Musk’s attorneys wrote in the appeal. “It chills Mr. Musk’s speech through never-ending threats of contempt, fines or even imprisonment for otherwise protected speech if not pre-approved to the SEC’s or a court’s satisfaction.”
The 2018 agreement was made after Musk posted on Twitter — before he purchased the site years later — that he intended to make Tesla a private company, resulting in the company’s stock rising.
He was accused of attempting to manipulate Tesla stock prices again in 2021, after he polled his Twitter followers over whether he should sell a 10th of his stock, a move that would have drastically changed the market price.
A federal appeals court shot down his challenge to the agreement in May.
“We see no evidence to support Musk’s contention that the SEC has used the consent decree to conduct bad-faith, harassing investigations of his protected speech,” according to the appeals court ruling. “To the contrary, the record indicates that the SEC has opened just three inquiries into Musk’s tweets since 2018. The first resulted in the consent decree that is the subject of this appeal.”
Musk also faces a separate SEC investigation over his purchase of Twitter, which he renamed to X. The agency sued Musk in October in a bid to force him to testify.
Musk appeals dispute over what he calls SEC’s ‘muzzle’ on free speech rights to Supreme Court
Tech billionaire Elon Musk filed a Supreme Court appeal Thursday to a Securities and Exchange Commission order that he limit public communications about his businesses, claiming that the 2018 agree…
thehill.com
Last edited:
printer
Well-Known Member
Senate Democrats press Thomas to recuse himself from Trump immunity case
Senate Democrats are calling on conservative Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from ruling on former President Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and other Democrats on the panel argue that Thomas faces a conflict of interest because his wife Ginni was outspoken in support of Trump’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
“There are so many unanswered questions about the relationship of the Justice and his family with the Trump administration that I think in the interests of justice he should recuse himself,” Durbin said.
Durbin added that “of course” he is concerned that the conservative leaning Supreme Court, to which Trump appointed three justices, could wind up ruling that the former president is immune from prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith or Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) over actions he took while president to block the peaceful transfer of power in 2021.
“If we say certain people are above the law I believe it diminishes values in this country,” he said.
Durbin and other Senate Democrats are stepping up pressure on Thomas to recuse himself from hearing Trump’s immunity claim because they don’t have much faith in Chief Justice John Roberts enforcing ethical or recusal guidelines among members of the court.
“When they came back with their supposed code of conduct, it didn’t address recusal like we did in the bill that we passed,” he added, referring to the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced in July.
Durbin made his comments after Smith, the special counsel, asked the Supreme Court Monday to consider and issue a speedy ruling on Trump’s immunity claim.
Trump’s trial on four felony counts charging him with attempting to subvert democracy is scheduled to begin March 4.
The Supreme Court has ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond to Smith’s request by Dec. 20.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said Ginni Thomas’s support for the pro-Trump crowd that demonstrated on the National Mall on Jan. 6, some of whom later stormed the Capitol, raises serious concerns about the prospect of Justice Thomas ruling on a federal prosecution of Trump.
Blumenthal noted that the special counsel’s case against Trump for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election “concerns Jan. 6, which involved [Justice Thomas’s] wife.”
Blumenthal also said “the argument could be made that anyone” else on the Supreme Court “with whom [Thomas] has discussed his wife’s involvement” in efforts to overturn the election “may have an improper interest.”
Ginni Thomas texted Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, after the 2020 election urging him to contest Joe Biden’s victory and later attended the pro-Trump rally that took place before protesters stormed the Capitol in a failed effort to stop the certification of the election results.
She urged Meadows to help Trump “stand firm” in opposing the results of the election and claimed “Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said Justice Thomas has both a conflict of interest and the appearance of a conflict of interest in any case about Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election.
Hirono said “recusal usually applies when there’s an actual conflict and when there’s an appearance of conflict.”
“I think in Clarence Thomas’s case, it’s both,” she added.
Hirono said Thomas should have recused himself from other matters, such as his grant of a stay on a lower court order that would have required Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to testify before an Atlanta special grand jury about efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.
“I think Justice Thomas should have recused himself from some of the other cases that came before him where his wife was very much involved. The fact he didn’t really raises concerns for whether they have a recusal practice that makes any kind of sense,” Hirono said.
Graham, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Tuesday said it’s up to Justice Thomas whether he should recuse himself from hearing arguments about Trump’s legal immunity.
“I’m sure Clarence Thomas will make his own decision,” he said.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), another member of the Judiciary panel, dismissed the Democrats’ calls for Thomas to recuse himself as “absurd.”
“They’re not the ones to make that judgment call nor am I aware of any standard by which he should be required to recuse himself in such a case. That’s absurd,” he said.
Other Democrats said the call for Thomas to step away from cases involving Trump “makes sense” given his wife’s outspoken political advocacy for the former president.
“It seems to make sense. Certainly the Supreme Court has a very poor record of taking its recusal responsibility seriously and being transparent about their rationale,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the chairman of the Senate’s Federal Courts and Oversight Judiciary Subcommittee.
D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Dec. 1 rejected Trump’s sweeping immunity claims.
“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-jail-free’ pass,” Chutkan wrote.
thehill.com/homenews/senate/4356111-clarence-thomas-recuse-trump-immunity-senate-democrats/
Senate Democrats are calling on conservative Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from ruling on former President Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while in office.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and other Democrats on the panel argue that Thomas faces a conflict of interest because his wife Ginni was outspoken in support of Trump’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
“There are so many unanswered questions about the relationship of the Justice and his family with the Trump administration that I think in the interests of justice he should recuse himself,” Durbin said.
Durbin added that “of course” he is concerned that the conservative leaning Supreme Court, to which Trump appointed three justices, could wind up ruling that the former president is immune from prosecution by special counsel Jack Smith or Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (D) over actions he took while president to block the peaceful transfer of power in 2021.
“If we say certain people are above the law I believe it diminishes values in this country,” he said.
Durbin and other Senate Democrats are stepping up pressure on Thomas to recuse himself from hearing Trump’s immunity claim because they don’t have much faith in Chief Justice John Roberts enforcing ethical or recusal guidelines among members of the court.
“When they came back with their supposed code of conduct, it didn’t address recusal like we did in the bill that we passed,” he added, referring to the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced in July.
Durbin made his comments after Smith, the special counsel, asked the Supreme Court Monday to consider and issue a speedy ruling on Trump’s immunity claim.
Trump’s trial on four felony counts charging him with attempting to subvert democracy is scheduled to begin March 4.
The Supreme Court has ordered Trump’s lawyers to respond to Smith’s request by Dec. 20.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said Ginni Thomas’s support for the pro-Trump crowd that demonstrated on the National Mall on Jan. 6, some of whom later stormed the Capitol, raises serious concerns about the prospect of Justice Thomas ruling on a federal prosecution of Trump.
Blumenthal noted that the special counsel’s case against Trump for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election “concerns Jan. 6, which involved [Justice Thomas’s] wife.”
Blumenthal also said “the argument could be made that anyone” else on the Supreme Court “with whom [Thomas] has discussed his wife’s involvement” in efforts to overturn the election “may have an improper interest.”
Ginni Thomas texted Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, after the 2020 election urging him to contest Joe Biden’s victory and later attended the pro-Trump rally that took place before protesters stormed the Capitol in a failed effort to stop the certification of the election results.
She urged Meadows to help Trump “stand firm” in opposing the results of the election and claimed “Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), another member of the Judiciary Committee, said Justice Thomas has both a conflict of interest and the appearance of a conflict of interest in any case about Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 election.
Hirono said “recusal usually applies when there’s an actual conflict and when there’s an appearance of conflict.”
“I think in Clarence Thomas’s case, it’s both,” she added.
Hirono said Thomas should have recused himself from other matters, such as his grant of a stay on a lower court order that would have required Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to testify before an Atlanta special grand jury about efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia.
“I think Justice Thomas should have recused himself from some of the other cases that came before him where his wife was very much involved. The fact he didn’t really raises concerns for whether they have a recusal practice that makes any kind of sense,” Hirono said.
Graham, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, on Tuesday said it’s up to Justice Thomas whether he should recuse himself from hearing arguments about Trump’s legal immunity.
“I’m sure Clarence Thomas will make his own decision,” he said.
Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), another member of the Judiciary panel, dismissed the Democrats’ calls for Thomas to recuse himself as “absurd.”
“They’re not the ones to make that judgment call nor am I aware of any standard by which he should be required to recuse himself in such a case. That’s absurd,” he said.
Other Democrats said the call for Thomas to step away from cases involving Trump “makes sense” given his wife’s outspoken political advocacy for the former president.
“It seems to make sense. Certainly the Supreme Court has a very poor record of taking its recusal responsibility seriously and being transparent about their rationale,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), the chairman of the Senate’s Federal Courts and Oversight Judiciary Subcommittee.
D.C. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan on Dec. 1 rejected Trump’s sweeping immunity claims.
“Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-jail-free’ pass,” Chutkan wrote.
thehill.com/homenews/senate/4356111-clarence-thomas-recuse-trump-immunity-senate-democrats/
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court will hear challenge to Jan. 6 obstruction charge
The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it will take up a challenge to an obstruction law used against scores of Jan. 6 rioters — and former President Trump — this term.
Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of being a Jan. 6 rioter, petitioned the high court to eliminate one of the several counts he faces: obstruction of an official proceeding.
The charge criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing, impeding or interfering with an official government proceeding and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Fischer’s case is joined with two other rioters’ cases: Edward Lang and Garrett Miller.
Hundreds of rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, have faced the same charge — the “official proceeding” being Congress’ official count of Electoral College votes, the final step of the presidential election process that certified President Biden’s win over Trump in the 2020 election.
Trump himself faces the same charge in connection with his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, meaning any Supreme Court decision on the matter could affect his federal criminal case, which is expected to head to trial in Washington, D.C., early next year.
Fischer’s petition to the high court argues that hundreds of cases awaiting trial would benefit from the justices’ clarification of the statute, providing “critical guidance to district courts, prosecutors and defense counsel.” Fritz Ulrich, Fischer’s lawyer, told The Hill they are “very happy” the court decided to clarify the scope of the statute.
The charge stems from a law enacted in 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal. The energy company went bankrupt and several top executives were imprisoned for fraud and other offenses.
Then a senator, Biden referred to the new subsection at the time as “making it a crime for document shredding” — a sentiment noted by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in his decision to throw out Miller’s obstruction charge upon finding it did not cover his conduct. Nichols also dismissed the charge in Fischer’s and Lang’s cases.
The Justice Department, now under Biden, rejected that representation in its appeal of Nichols’s decision to toss the three rioters’ obstruction charges, arguing that actions such as burning a building to conceal the bodies of murder victims would also be encompassed by the statute.
“Congress prohibited conduct that intentionally and wrongfully obstructs official proceedings,” Justice Department appellate counsel James Pearce wrote. “The ordinary meaning of ‘obstruct, influence, or impede’ encompasses a range of conduct designed to frustrate an official proceeding.”
In a 2-1 ruling earlier this year, the federal appeals court sided with the Justice Department by finding that Nichols wrongly dismissed the obstruction charge in the three rioters’ cases.
Judge Florence Pan noted in her ruling that Nichols was the only district court judge overseeing Jan. 6 cases to rule in that manner. More than a dozen other Washington district court judges agreed with the Justice Department’s portrayal of the law.
“Although the opinions of those district judges are not binding on us, the near unanimity of the rulings is striking, as well as the thorough and persuasive reasoning in the decision,” Pan wrote.
Judge Gregory Katsas, who sided with Nichols, suggested the Justice Department’s interpretation of the crime could “supercharge” minor advocacy, lobbying and protest offenses into 20-year felonies.
Several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups faced the charge and were convicted, including the leaders of each group, Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes. Dozens of other defendants with less serious cases have pleaded guilty to the charge or been convicted at trial.
If the Supreme Court sides with the rioters, it would undermine those charges in other Jan. 6 cases — including the former president’s.
thehill.com
The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it will take up a challenge to an obstruction law used against scores of Jan. 6 rioters — and former President Trump — this term.
Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of being a Jan. 6 rioter, petitioned the high court to eliminate one of the several counts he faces: obstruction of an official proceeding.
The charge criminalizes “corruptly” obstructing, impeding or interfering with an official government proceeding and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison. Fischer’s case is joined with two other rioters’ cases: Edward Lang and Garrett Miller.
Hundreds of rioters who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, have faced the same charge — the “official proceeding” being Congress’ official count of Electoral College votes, the final step of the presidential election process that certified President Biden’s win over Trump in the 2020 election.
Trump himself faces the same charge in connection with his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, meaning any Supreme Court decision on the matter could affect his federal criminal case, which is expected to head to trial in Washington, D.C., early next year.
Fischer’s petition to the high court argues that hundreds of cases awaiting trial would benefit from the justices’ clarification of the statute, providing “critical guidance to district courts, prosecutors and defense counsel.” Fritz Ulrich, Fischer’s lawyer, told The Hill they are “very happy” the court decided to clarify the scope of the statute.
The charge stems from a law enacted in 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal. The energy company went bankrupt and several top executives were imprisoned for fraud and other offenses.
Then a senator, Biden referred to the new subsection at the time as “making it a crime for document shredding” — a sentiment noted by U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols in his decision to throw out Miller’s obstruction charge upon finding it did not cover his conduct. Nichols also dismissed the charge in Fischer’s and Lang’s cases.
The Justice Department, now under Biden, rejected that representation in its appeal of Nichols’s decision to toss the three rioters’ obstruction charges, arguing that actions such as burning a building to conceal the bodies of murder victims would also be encompassed by the statute.
“Congress prohibited conduct that intentionally and wrongfully obstructs official proceedings,” Justice Department appellate counsel James Pearce wrote. “The ordinary meaning of ‘obstruct, influence, or impede’ encompasses a range of conduct designed to frustrate an official proceeding.”
In a 2-1 ruling earlier this year, the federal appeals court sided with the Justice Department by finding that Nichols wrongly dismissed the obstruction charge in the three rioters’ cases.
Judge Florence Pan noted in her ruling that Nichols was the only district court judge overseeing Jan. 6 cases to rule in that manner. More than a dozen other Washington district court judges agreed with the Justice Department’s portrayal of the law.
“Although the opinions of those district judges are not binding on us, the near unanimity of the rulings is striking, as well as the thorough and persuasive reasoning in the decision,” Pan wrote.
Judge Gregory Katsas, who sided with Nichols, suggested the Justice Department’s interpretation of the crime could “supercharge” minor advocacy, lobbying and protest offenses into 20-year felonies.
Several members of the extremist Proud Boys and Oath Keepers groups faced the charge and were convicted, including the leaders of each group, Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes. Dozens of other defendants with less serious cases have pleaded guilty to the charge or been convicted at trial.
If the Supreme Court sides with the rioters, it would undermine those charges in other Jan. 6 cases — including the former president’s.
Supreme Court will hear challenge to Jan. 6 obstruction charge
The Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it will take up a challenge to an obstruction law used against scores of Jan. 6 rioters — and former President Trump — this term. Joseph Fischer, a former poli…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Supreme Court will wade back into abortion fight
Wednesday’s announcement means the issue of abortion will be brought before the court again more than a year after the justices ended the constitutional right to abortion.
The court granted a request from the Justice Department and one from Danco, the manufacturer of Mifeprex, the branded version of mifepristone.
The administration asked the justices to take up the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in favor of imposing restrictions on patients’ access to the drug.
The lower court in August said mifepristone — both Mifeprex and its generic counterpart — can stay on the market in states where abortion is legal, but changes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made since 2016 to ease access to the drug were not allowed because the agency did not follow proper procedure in enacting them. This includes allowing medication to be sent by mail or prescribed by telemedicine.
The decision could have major implications not just for access to mifepristone but also for the biopharma industry and FDA’s approval authority.
While the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade and has appeared hostile to abortion, an emergency ruling by the court in April means access to mifepristone is unchanged until there’s a decision, which could come in June 2024. That means a ruling could arrive at the heart of the campaign season.
Mifepristone is widely used across the U.S. to end a pregnancy in the first 10 weeks of gestation. It was first approved in 2000, and about half of all abortions nationwide are performed using mifepristone as the first of a two-pill regimen, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research and advocacy group. It is also used to help manage miscarriages.
But one of the other policies at stake is the 10-week window. Under the appeals court ruling, mifepristone would only be approved for use at up to 7 weeks gestation.
thehill.com
Wednesday’s announcement means the issue of abortion will be brought before the court again more than a year after the justices ended the constitutional right to abortion.
The court granted a request from the Justice Department and one from Danco, the manufacturer of Mifeprex, the branded version of mifepristone.
The administration asked the justices to take up the case after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in favor of imposing restrictions on patients’ access to the drug.
The lower court in August said mifepristone — both Mifeprex and its generic counterpart — can stay on the market in states where abortion is legal, but changes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) made since 2016 to ease access to the drug were not allowed because the agency did not follow proper procedure in enacting them. This includes allowing medication to be sent by mail or prescribed by telemedicine.
The decision could have major implications not just for access to mifepristone but also for the biopharma industry and FDA’s approval authority.
While the Supreme Court’s 6-3 conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade and has appeared hostile to abortion, an emergency ruling by the court in April means access to mifepristone is unchanged until there’s a decision, which could come in June 2024. That means a ruling could arrive at the heart of the campaign season.
Mifepristone is widely used across the U.S. to end a pregnancy in the first 10 weeks of gestation. It was first approved in 2000, and about half of all abortions nationwide are performed using mifepristone as the first of a two-pill regimen, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research and advocacy group. It is also used to help manage miscarriages.
But one of the other policies at stake is the 10-week window. Under the appeals court ruling, mifepristone would only be approved for use at up to 7 weeks gestation.
Supreme Court to wade back into abortion
Presented by AstraZeneca — Wednesday’s announcement means the issue of abortion will be brought before the court again more than a year after the justices ended the constitutional right to ab…
thehill.com
printer
Well-Known Member
Gorsuch Signed Off on Abortion Draft Opinion Quickly
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch signed off on a 98-page draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in just 10 minutes, according to a breakdown of how the high court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion by the New York Times.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett M. Kavanaugh also said they would sign on to the opinion, circulated by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., and none requested a single alteration to it.
Barrett, though, originally opposed even taking up the case, according to the Times, so it was re-listed on the docket week after week. Dobbs became the second most re-listed case ever granted review.
“If the court’s opinions change with its membership, public confidence in the court as an institution might decline,” Barrett wrote in a law review article laying out the dilemma she faced in spring 2021. “Its members might be seen as partisan rather than impartial and case law as fueled by power rather than reason.”
Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court on Oct. 26, 2020, about a week before Election Day and 30 days after she was nominated by then-President Donald Trump to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The Times in its report said Alito likely pre-circulated the Dobbs draft opinion among his four allies to get buy-in before sharing it with the full group of justices.
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 shocked the nation in overturning nearly 50 years of precedent based on the 1973 Supreme Court decision on abortion, Roe v. Wade.
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch signed off on a 98-page draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization in just 10 minutes, according to a breakdown of how the high court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion by the New York Times.
Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett M. Kavanaugh also said they would sign on to the opinion, circulated by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., and none requested a single alteration to it.
Barrett, though, originally opposed even taking up the case, according to the Times, so it was re-listed on the docket week after week. Dobbs became the second most re-listed case ever granted review.
“If the court’s opinions change with its membership, public confidence in the court as an institution might decline,” Barrett wrote in a law review article laying out the dilemma she faced in spring 2021. “Its members might be seen as partisan rather than impartial and case law as fueled by power rather than reason.”
Barrett was confirmed to the Supreme Court on Oct. 26, 2020, about a week before Election Day and 30 days after she was nominated by then-President Donald Trump to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The Times in its report said Alito likely pre-circulated the Dobbs draft opinion among his four allies to get buy-in before sharing it with the full group of justices.
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022 shocked the nation in overturning nearly 50 years of precedent based on the 1973 Supreme Court decision on abortion, Roe v. Wade.
printer
Well-Known Member
Fogdog
Well-Known Member
Giving lavish gifts to a judge and that judge accepting them from people who stand to gain or lose depending on the judge's rulings is OK if the judge sits on the SCOTUS? Then the beneficiary ruling in favor of the gift giver? Then not reporting it as required by law? Is there really no law against that? Have no crimes been committed?
Are members of the Supreme Court by law unaccountable when they commit corrupt acts? I'm having difficulty believing that is true.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Afaik the mechanics for impeaching a justice are steep. The Constitution was overly kind to the Supreme Court imo. We are witnessing a system’s tendency to explore the limits, and there are few limits in this instance.
The real reason for the Supreme Court’s corruption crisis
Who watches the philosopher kings with lifetime appointments?