Tag: SCOTUS

Supremely Corrupt

scotusfrauds The Legion of Doom. Impeach them all.

The latest travesty from the corrupt anti-American fascist-enablers that make up the majority of our Supreme Court attempts to make the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution null and void. And it's merely the next link the lengthening chain of indefensible rulings from John Roberts and his Gang of Supervillains.

In the ruling favoring the government's position in Noem v. Vazquez Perdomo—unsigned, a product of the so-called "shadow docket" but with a concurrence written by Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh—suspends the ruling of a lower court that declared actions taken in California by the Department of Homeland Security ran afoul of the public's Constitutional rights. Basically, it says that Constitutional protections from unreasonable searches and seizures are optional, that law enforcement may decide what's reasonable and what isn't and courts and judges can go fly a kite.

In his concurrence, Kavanaugh cites language from The Immigration and Nationality Act that says anyone may be detained and questioned given “a reasonable suspicion, based on specific articulable facts,” then goes on to describe DHS actions interrogating/snatching people "based on the following factors or combination of factors: (i) presence at particular locations such as bus stops, car washes, day laborer pickup sites, agricultural sites, and the like; (ii) the type of work one does; (iii) speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent; and (iv) apparent race or ethnicity"—the basis for the lower courts injunction—as perfectly fine.

"In my view," Kavanaugh writes,  "the Government has made a sufficient showing to obtain a stay pending appeal," contending that "the Government has demonstrated a fair prospect of reversal of the District Court’s injunction." How, you ask? By claiming those suing Kristi Noem and DHS have no standing. Those people have already been hassled by DHS, and they want injunctive relief against future harassment? Ridiculous, says Kavanaugh. "Plaintiffs have no good basis to believe that law enforcement will unlawfully stop them [specifically] in the future based on the prohibited factors—and certainly no good basis for believing that any stop of the plaintiffs is imminent." This is another example of the Roberts Court's claim that courts cannot protect the public at large, they can only protect the specific individuals who bring lawsuits and only in very narrow contexts.

Plus, I'd contend that the plaintiffs here have pretty firm basis that they are at risk. Their circumstances, i.e. existing while brown and Spanish-speaking, haven't changed since they were originally harassed so their continues to be equal risk.

Justice I Like Beer goes on to claim that DHS uses "their experience" and "a variety of factors" in deciding who to stop/question/harass/abduct, therefore the court cannot claim said decisions are "unreasonable." He continues, "Whether an officer has reasonable suspicion depends on the totality of the circumstances," then describes ethnic profiling and the supposition that undocumented immigrants often work certain jobs, "and that many of those illegally in the Los Angeles area come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English" as valid reasons for DHS to do their thing. In other words, yeah, bigotry is fine.

And pay no attention to the fact that this entire justification is the inverse of the standing argument: Courts may only protect the specific individuals bringing suit for their specific individual claim and cannot paint with any broader brush than that, but DHS and law enforcement can paint with as broad a brush as they damn well want to. Double-standards are the way of the Roberts Court, after all.

It's a blatantly unconstitutional opinion. The Fourth Amendment doesn't allow for the kind of wiggle room or double standards Kavanaugh wants to employ. It says, in its entirety, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Then, as a cherry on top, Kavanaugh shows his absolute ignorance/willful blindness to reality with this gem: "Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter." Really, Brett? Ask Kilmar Abrego about that. Ask any number of people here legally but still being held in immigration detention centers or the Florida concentration camp if they were "free to go" following a "brief encounter" with DHS.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned the dissent, yet another blistering rebuke of the majority's abuse of their position. Noting that it used to be near-unheard of for SCOTUS to stay a district court's ruling without prompting, Sotomayor wrote that this ruling "is yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket. We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job."

Sotomayor goes on to detail the abuses of DHS in this matter and their terroristic tactics, reiterates the veracity of the plaintiff's case, cites the thoroughness of the District Court's decision that Kavanaugh rejects, and for good measure gives a primer on THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, since the majority of this court wants to pretend it doesn't exist. Kavanaugh's championing of profiling holds no water; the majority opinion's justifications "in no way reflect the kind of individualized inquiry the Fourth Amendment demands," writes Sotomayor, and she is 100% correct, citing numerous case precedents to back her up (including one that Kavanaugh attempted to twist into support for his concurrence). She also eviscerates Kavanaugh's lack-of-standing argument as well as points out what should be obvious to anyone taking this seriously, let alone, oh I don't know, A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, that the government's case rests on its claim that the District Court's injunction against detaining/harassing people based on Kavanaugh-approved ethnic profiling “chills [its] enforcement efforts” and “deters officers from stopping suspects even when they have reasonable suspicion on other grounds.” If they have other grounds, then they are not violating the injunction. They're fighting the injunction because they want the freedom use these unconstitutional grounds.

Unwilling to let Kavanaugh's willful ignorance of reality skate by, Sotomayor also writes, "Immigration agents are not conducting 'brief stops for questioning,' as the concurrence would like to believe. They are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions. Nor are undocumented immigrants the only ones harmed by the Government’s conduct. United States citizens are also being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families. The concurrence relegates the interests of U.S. citizens and individuals with legal status to a single sentence, positing that the Government will free these individuals as soon as they show they are legally in the United States. That blinks reality."

She concludes: "Because this [ruling] is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent."

The whole dissent is suitably righteous and damning. Sotomayor serves to remind us what the Supreme Court of the United States is supposed to be, how the Constitution is supposed to be the Court's foundation, and maybe provides the slimmest bit of hope that when this reign of autocratic terror finally comes to an end that sanity will return to America.

 

Tagged SCOTUS, Politics, Posted on September 9, 2025 at 8:57PM   |   Permalink   |     |  

No Comments yet

Saturday rant

scotus

Being angry is merely the default state for most of us here in POTUS47’s reign of American carnage. How could it not be with every action, every speech, every embarrassing Troth-Sential post, every unhinged and tyrannical impulse to come out of the White House since noon on January 20th?

But today my anger had kicked up a few notches to irate.

And this time not so much at POTUS47, although he is, of course, a mammoth factor in all of this. No, today my ire is aimed at the entire Republican party.

Each and every Republican elected official and, yes, many of the people that voted for them. I know a lot of them were duped and hoodwinked, but others were all-in on ushering in bigoted despotism, so they get some emotional fury too.

Why the uptick in bloodboil? Look no further than the allegedly Supreme Court.

Yesterday the six corrupt and illegitimate justices occupying SCOTUS ruled that lower courts have no say over the lawless authoritarian power-grabs of President Temper Tantrum. They also overturned Supreme Court precedent on a free speech case, told public schools that parents can exempt students from learning anything they choose on religious grounds, and told Louisiana voters to shut up about gerrymandering until at least 2028, among other things.

SCOTUS has destroyed its legitimacy completely with the anti-Constitutional and pro-authoritarian rulings as well as the slow-walking approach in deliberately failing to hear critical cases over the past few years. The six so-called "conservative" justices have been tools of POTUS47’s fascist takeover and are as dangerous to the rule of law as is anyone in government.

And they are being allowed to be such, allowed to further shred the Constitution, allowed to whittle away the rights of everyone in this country, by the Republican party.

Republicans, thanks to our dumb electorate who already lived through the 2017-2021 horror show and apparently learned nothing, have the majority in both houses of Congress and thus have the power to put an end to these abuses of power right now. Today. In fact, they are the only group empowered to do so by legal means—I mean, the Cabinet theoretically could invoke the 25th Amendment and remove POTUS47, but the very reason most of them are in their positions is that they won't do that under any circumstances.

So that leaves Congress.

But Speaker of the House Mike Johnson is a feckless toady. Steve Scalise, Tom Emmer, Kevin Hern, they are either fascists or cowards; the rank-and-file House Republicans include even worse individuals. If they were not, if even some of the Republican House caucus actually believed in and abided by their oaths of office, they would bring articles of impeachment to the floor immediately for at least a dozen officials. If the Republican contingent in the Senate were even partly beholden to the Constitution and the values of a democratic republic, the impeached would be promptly convicted and removed from power.

The blob of sociopathic insecurity that is the president would be first among the list to be impeached, but Vice President Hillbilly Elegy has betrayed his oath of office as well, and then there are the Cabinet secretaries—the stunningly incompetent RFK Jr., the rage-drunk Pete Hegseth, the empty shell of Marco Rubio, the cruel criminal cosplayer that is Kristi Noem, the should-be-disbarred AG Pam Bondi—and at least four Supreme Court Justices. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are corrupt as hell, John Roberts uses his position as Chief Justice to support lawlessness, Brett Kavanaugh perjured himself countless times in his confirmation hearings. Gorsuch's seat was stolen. (Barrett's was technically legitimate despite the political opportunism that allowed her nomination, so there's less of a case for her.)

This Supreme Court has already:

You want to talk about "activist judges?" There they are.

We have this court because (a) Republicans in the Senate stole a nomination from Barack Obama and gave it illegally to POTUS45; (b) our dumb electorate was snookered into voting for Republican POTUS45 in the first place; (c) Senate Republicans chose to confirm three appointments to the court by POTUS45 despite  those nominees' demonstrated abuses, perjury, political intent, and fealty to a corrupt president; and (d) no Republicans in Congress will remove any of the justices despite their corruption and their wanton disregard for upholding law and Constitutionality.

There is so much about this time we're living in, this post-2016 era, that will require enormous repair if and when the despotic administration of Donny Cruel Whinybaby is overcome. So many safeguards that will need to be enacted, so many protections against rogue Justices as well as rogue and unAmerican electeds.

But that requires getting through to the other side of this safely, and right now I just see preambles to the worse that Star Trek told us we'd have to get through before the better comes. SCOTUS' blessing to criminalizing homelessness is a step toward Sanctuary Districts. SCOTUS declaring that the law only applies in certain areas and to certain populations puts us on the path toward balkanization of the United States and the second civil war. President Psychopath's bombing of Iran could easily lead to nuclear proliferation and escalation in that region that involves mushroom clouds, from which it isn't a big jump to WWIII and the post-atomic horror. We can only hope we get a visit from the Vulcans by then to shock us into sanity.

 

Tagged Politics, SCOTUS, Star Trek, Posted on June 28, 2025 at 11:38PM   |   Permalink   |     |  

No Comments yet

Court crisis

scotusfrauds The six most dangerous people in the United States right now

The Supreme Court has been issuing incredibly bad rulings for two-plus years, but today's was the worst of the worst and has sent me into a fit of anger/frustration/(non-clinical) depression/outrage/terror/anxiety.

I was going to write a big screed about the indefensible and clearly unconstitutional "immunity" ruling but I find I can't focus my outrage into a coherent narrative in the time I have before I have to leave for umpiring. So instead I am going to quote Mary Trump, niece of the criminal ex-POTUS, who rightly is focused on preventing things from getting even worse.

The justices who are trying to make my uncle a king are traitors, equal to the traitors who attempted a coup against our nation and who have been spreading the Big Lie in order to undermine the American people’s faith in free and fair elections. With this immunity decision, they have launched an attack on our most important ideals. It’s a continuation of the 2021 coup attempt, and it’s the start of the next one, not just a rubber stamp for my uncle’s worst impulses and abuses but an open invitation for more .... This was an unjust and anti-democratic decision from a Court that no longer has any credibility and, apparently, no longer believes in its mission to uphold the Constitution. 

Six unelected people have stripped basic human rights from millions of women, destroyed the federal government, and made it almost impossible to hold Donald accountable while coming very close to granting him the powers of a king. It’s time for tens of millions of us to rise up and vote in unprecedented numbers. That’s how we tell the New York Times editorial board to fuck off. It’s how we increase the likelihood that Donald goes to prison or, at the very least, never gets near the levers of power again. And it’s how we start to take back our country from the corrupt traitors on the Supreme Court. 

This [SCOTUS] decision is the end of something and we have a choice: we can be demoralized and stop fighting, or we can use these horrific decisions as a rallying cry—because if we do nothing, the consequences will be swift and unthinkable. If we do nothing, Donald will win and that will be the end of the American experiment.  

So let’s get it together. If we want to save our country and our future and our children’s futures, we have to elect Democrats no matter what. 

This has all been worse than we thought it would be, but we now know it will absolutely get so much worse than we can imagine unless we own the fact that making sure American democracy survives is down to us and no one else.

This is DEFCON 1. SCOTUS is already doing what they can to implement Project 2025, just making shit up so violations of law and the very US Constitution—but only by the "right" people—is permissible.

The Roberts Court has stripped away reproductive rights from American women, stripped away regulatory authority from governing experts in any field, and declared Presidents are above the law so long as they can call their crimes "official." Not mentioned in Mary's great post is that the Court recently also legalized bribery of government officials, so long as the bribe comes after the favor as a "gratuity"; made it easier for frauds to be perpetrated on the Securities and Exchange Commission; stripped away portions of the Clean Air Act, thus allowing even greater pollution from corporate entities; allowed municipalities to criminalize homelessness; eliminated a ban on so-called "bump stocks" that convert guns into machine guns; and said states can gerrymander their Congressional districts as much as they like.

And that's just what I have off the top of my head.

The six justices appointed by Trump and by the Bushes are completely out of control, not even pretending anymore that they are not a subsidiary of the Republican Party, a Republican Party that has thrown its lot in with autocratic anti-American criminals. If we had a Congress without so many Republican enablers of this traitorous behavior, two of those justices—Alito and Thomas—would be impeached on monetary corruption grounds and a third—Chief Justice Roberts—for negligence as well as aiding and abetting criminality in several instances, not the least of which was the impeachment trials of Donald Trump which he presided over and completely abdicated his duties in. The other three are illegitimate based on (a) perjury in their confirmation hearings, and (b) their appointment by a criminal president.

The sooner any and all of these six people are removed from the Court the better. The sooner Congress and President Biden can expand the Court to match the number of circuit courts again the better.

Until then we're in big trouble.

 

Tagged Politics, President VonClownstick, President Biden, SCOTUS, Posted on July 1, 2024 at 5:49PM   |   Permalink   |     |  

No Comments yet

Quotes of the week

A few notes from over the last week or so. I'd been meaning to post longer bits about each of these, but time got away from me and, you know, there was stuff to do. Anyway, a few things I heard/read that deserve some repetition:

  • "I don't care about you. I just want your vote."  This was former president Cheeto Hitler in a rare moment of honesty, talking to the crowd at his hate rally in Las Vegas. The man cares about nothing other than power for himself and becoming a U.S. incarnation of Kim Jong Un.
  • "If the hood fits..."  So said David Ferguson on The Bob Cesca Show last Thursday. David was referring to Supreme Court "Justice" Samuel Alito's outrage, outrage! at being called a bigot. "I just can't with these people," Ferguson went on. "They're like, 'how dare you accuse us of being prejudiced! We just hate black people and queers.' I want to Psycho-shower these people."
  • “He can’t stand for 90 minutes, but he’s 100% able to be President? Have fun explaining that.”  That was alleged Congressman Josh Hawley (MAGA-MO) criticizing President Biden, thinking that the format for next week's scheduled presidential debate will have the candidates seated at a table and that said format was demanded by the president. I seem to remember President Biden standing for a long address at the House of Representatives a couple months back without any trouble. And guess what—standing is not a requirement to be President of the United States. Franklin Roosevelt held the gig for 12+ years without standing at all.
  • "Time never applied to Willie Mays the way it applies to others. He is like a Kurt Vonnegut character, unstuck in time, everything, everywhere, all at once, simultaneously the Say Hey Kid playing stickball in the streets of New York and the wizard outrunning baseballs soaring toward the gap at Candlestick Park, and the slugger tearing into baseballs as if it is something personal, and the legend launching a million memories and making parents and grandparents feel like children."  That's Joe Posnanski, remembering the great Willie Mays, who died yesterday at age 93.
  • And this, from satirist Andy Borowitz:
    THE OCEAN DEEP (The Borowitz Report)—Calling his longstanding fear of being devoured by them “delusional thinking at its saddest,” the world’s sharks issued a statement on Tuesday disavowing “any interest whatsoever” in eating Donald J. Trump.
       “Given his constant intake of Diet Coke and hamburgers, there is nothing to indicate that Trump would be anything resembling a nutritious meal,” the sharks’ statement read. “The very thought of biting into him is nauseating.”
       The sharks said that Trump’s anxiety about being eaten by them demonstrates “an inflated sense of his appeal, to say the least.”
       “We thought the same thing when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed he was eaten by a worm,” the sharks wrote. “Why do these narcissists think they’re so delicious?”
       In perhaps their most withering comment, the sharks concluded, “We might consider eating Trump if the only other thing on the menu was Steve Bannon.”

Tagged Politics, Baseball, SCOTUS, President VonClownstick, Posted on June 19, 2024 at 3:47PM   |   Permalink   |     |  

No Comments yet

PAY ATTENTION

scotus

Anyone/everyone here watch The Handmaid's Tale on Hulu? (If you don't, you're missing out, it's excellent if scary.) You know the scenes that are flashbacks to the before-time, pre-Gilead, when things were incrementally sliding into theocratic fascist dystopia? We're on the cusp of living those flashback times for real thanks in very large part to our extraordinarily corrupt and willfully obtuse Supreme Court.

"Justice" Samuel Alito, third in seniority and first in fascistic ideology, brought us the latest SCOTUS ruling to roll back progress. Utterly ignoring the Reconstruction-era amendments to the Constitution, Alito declared for the Court that states can draw their district maps using racial demographics as their guide and it's just fine, so long as they put forth a "possible" claim that they're not using race as their "primary motivation" in their overtly-partisan redistricting agenda, and if a court rightly says "this is BS and violates the Constitution," just appeal it to the Supreme Court and they'll overturn that.

This is the latest in an apparently ongoing series of rulings SCOTUS has made to gut voting rights in this country and aid the modern Republican party in its efforts to disenfranchise, you know, "those people." In 2013, the Court delivered a ruling written by Chief "Justice" John Roberts that said the Voting Rights Act's key provisions were no longer necessary and struck them down, leading to a new wave of disenfranchisement legislating (the late Justice Antonin Scalia called the Voting Rights Act a “perpetuation of racial entitlement” during that case). In 2019, SCOTUS, in Alito's voice again, declared partisan gerrymandering didn't violate anything and could proceed without interference, placing limits on the challenges brought in the case ruled on this week that were still met.

Justice Elena Kagan delivered brilliant dissenting opinions in more than one of these cases. In the 2019 case, she wrote "If left unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government." She continued:

"The majority’s abdication comes just when courts across the country ... have coalesced around manageable judicial standards to resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. Those standards satisfy the majority’s own benchmarks. They do not require—indeed, they do not permit—courts to rely on their own ideas of electoral fairness, whether proportional representation or any other. And they limit courts to correcting only egregious gerrymanders, so judges do not become omnipresent players in the political process. But yes, the standards used here do allow—as well they should—judicial intervention in the worst-of-the-worst cases of democratic subversion, causing blatant constitutional harms. In other words, they allow courts to undo partisan gerrymanders of the kind we face today from North Carolina and Maryland. In giving such gerrymanders a pass from judicial review, the majority goes tragically wrong."

Similarly, Alito and company once more ignored the judicial standard of conduct in this week's ruling, specifically the principle that a lower court be overruled only in cases of "clear error." From Kagan's dissent:

"In dismissing [the lower court's] strong case, the majority cherry-picks evidence, ignores credibility findings, misunderstands expert views, and substitutes its own statistical theories. Its opinion gives not a whit of respect to the District Court’s factual findings, thus defying the demands of clear-error review.

...

"What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers about racial gerrymandering. For reasons I’ve addressed, those actors will often have an incentive to use race as a proxy to achieve partisan ends. And occasionally they might want to straight-up suppress the electoral influence of minority voters. Go right ahead, this Court says to States today. Go ahead, though you have no recognized justification for using race, such as to comply with statutes ensuring equal voting rights. Go ahead, though you are (at best) using race as a short-cut to bring about partisan gains—to elect more Republicans in one case, more Democrats in another. It will be easy enough to cover your tracks in the end: Just raise a 'possibility' of non-race-based decision-making, and it will be 'dispositive.' And so this 'odious' practice of sorting citizens, built on racial generalizations and exploiting racial divisions, will continue."

This is just the latest abuse of power for partisan gain by the Roberts Court. It will continue, and continue, and continue until something is done.

We need Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress and in the White House. Only then will the bad actors perpetuating the ability of this lawless Supreme Court majority be circumvented and corrections can start to be made. Whether that comes in the form of impeachments of Alito and Clarence Thomas or expansion of the Court to 11 or 13 Justices or both or some other measure, the status quo cannot continue.

That way lies Gilead.

 

Tagged Politics, SCOTUS, Posted on May 24, 2024 at 11:27PM   |   Permalink   |     |  

No Comments yet

Darrin Bell FTW

dbell

 

The genius behind Candorville cuts right to the heart of the matter.

I'm not sure what the green bottles signify. Any ideas? (UPDATE: Oh, are they spray paint cans, they've just retitled the banner? OK. Sorry, Darrin, it should have been obvious.)

Tagged Politics, Republicans, SCOTUS, Darrin Bell, Posted on March 2, 2024 at 6:10PM   |   Permalink   |     |  

No Comments yet

Supremely problematic

scotus2 Bribes taken at the back entrance

As if we needed more evidence to support the idea, today's decision by the Supreme Court of the United States granting former president VonClownstick's request to an appeal regarding his claim of "presidential immunity" gives even more reason to believe the Court is corrupt and working in tandem with the Republican party and not in the service of the Constitution or the rule of law.

It's not a "win" for the former president in that all they've decided is to hear his appeal, not to necessarily agree with it, but it is a huge win for him in that it grants him at least two more months of delay in resolving this matter. The likelihood of his standing trial on this case—in case you've lot track, this is the Jack Smith/January 6th insurrection case, not the stolen documents case or the hush money case or the Georgia electioneering case or the civil fraud case or the suits against him from DC police or any of the other myriad court cases the guy's been up to his eyeballs in for his whole life—and a verdict being reached before the November election is now pretty remote.

The trial had been scheduled to begin next week, on March 4th. That won't happen now, as SCOTUS has suspended that until the outcome of its hearing the appeal, which won't happen until April 22nd. When they issue a ruling will come who knows how long after that. Quoting former US District Attorney Joyce Vance:

The case could have been handled much more quickly, especially because the issue before the Court isn’t difficult: either presidents can commit crimes to stay in office or they can’t. The timeline here was a choice, made by the Justices. They chose to give Donald Trump at least two more months of delay. We don’t know how a specific Justice votes on a cert grant. But we do know that at least five Justices voted to hear this case because while it only takes four votes to grant cert, it take five to grant a stay, and the Court’s order, continues the stay in the trial court while the appeal is underway.

It could be June or July before SCOTUS makes a call on this. A trial will take months. Election Day is immovable and doesn't care if a trial is over yet or not.

Clarence Thomas is corrupt. He's taken de facto bribes for decades and refuses to recuse when he's clearly got a conflict of interest in a case. Sam Alito has taken similar de facto bribes from people associated with the right-wing Federalist Society. Neil Gorsuch sold property to a lawyer with 22 subsequent cases before the Court (and no, he didn't recuse himself). Brett Kavanaugh somehow got confirmed by the Senate despite committing perjury in his hearings, having suspicious financial activity and very credible sexual assault allegations against him, and had eighty-three complaints of ethics violations levied against him for conduct in those hearings. Amy Coney Barrett, like Gorsuch, sold property to persons with business before the court and did not recuse; she also refused to recuse in a case involving the David Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, a conservative advocacy group that spent "seven figures" lobbying for Barrett's confirmation by the Senate (AFP also lobbied for the confirmations of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, who likewise refused to recuse). John Roberts' wife had a heavy financial interest in a case before the Court and Roberts was fine with presiding over it; he utterly failed to do his job in presiding over the Trump impeachments; and as the Chief Justice he has repeatedly claimed that everyone on his Court has behaved in an exemplary ethical fashion, declining to enforce any sort of ethical guidelines for the Court.

More important than any of that, though—but it is related—is that two-thirds of this Supreme Court has shown itself to be loyal to ideology, not law; Republican policy, not the Constitution.

They support states' rights until it conflicts with their ideology. They support legal precedent until it conflicts with their ideology. They support Constitutional principles—until they conflict with their ideology.

My favorite(?) example of a Justice's hypocrisy and obtuseness came when, in hearing the case regarding Colorado removing Trump from their primary ballot, Alito opined that a single state shouldn't have so much influence on who wins a presidential election. This was from a guy that worked on the Bush v. Gore case in Florida in 2000, a case where the Court completely improperly stepped in to halt a recount and declare that Bush won the presidency because of an incomplete ballot tally in one state.

If not for the presence of too many Republicans in the House of Representatives, Clarence Thomas, at least, would be looking at impeachment. (Personally, I think Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett should all be impeached, with the latter three being deemed to have been appointed by a treasonous president, but that's a pipe dream.) Gorsuch's seat was blatantly stolen by the Republicans when they refused to confirm anyone appointed by then-President Obama, giving his a uniquely tainted Justiceship.

There is so very much damage to repair from the Trump years, with correcting the Supreme Court near the top of the list. But to do it, we're going to need voters to step up and not only re-elect President Biden, but elect enough Democrats to the Senate and House to neuter the fascist plans of the now-authoritarian Republican Party.

Tagged Politics, Republicans, SCOTUS, Posted on February 28, 2024 at 11:14PM   |   Permalink   |     |  

No Comments yet