#Kavanaugh confirmed

[hale-nathan]

Kavanaugh Confirmation Revisited - FBI Sham Investigation

Update

"The FBI conducted a sham investigation into Brett Kavanaugh."

[boreal-sea]

Who is Kamala Harris?

These are all from her Wikipedia page. I have picked the top 5 for each of these sections. Maybe you think other things are more important, these are just the things that stood out to me:

Highlights as District Attorney of San Francisco:

was tough on gun crime: created a gun crime unit, set 90-day minimum sentences, raised bail for gun-related crimes, and prosecuted all assault weapon possession cases as felonies.

created a hate crimes unit specifically focused on LGBTQ hate crimes against children and teens in school.

was (and is) against the death penalty; during her time as DA did not cave to pressure in several cases to seek the death penalty.

helped create the San Francisco Reentry Division, aimed at helping prisoners reintegrate after their sentences are through; the program became a national model.

refused to enforce prop 8, which was at the time California's ban on gay marriage.

Highlights as Attorney General of California

introduced the Homeowner Bill of Rights and fought against banks, mortgage companies, and credit card companies.

fought for financial reimbursement for public employee and teacher pensions.

fought for environmental protections and secured settlements and indictments against several oil companies for oil spills.

conducted a review of implicit bias in policing and the use of deadly force and introduced implicit bias training.

declared a law that California law enforcement had to collect and report police violence.

Highlights as a California Senator:

condemned Trump's Muslim ban.

opposed Trump's appointments of Betsy DeVos and Jeff Sessions, his nomination of Neil Gorsuch, and voted against confirming Kavanaugh.

tried to make lynching a federal hate crime.

urged the Trump administration to investigate the persecution of Uyghur Muslims in China.

voted to convict Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Highlights as Vice president:

as President of the Senate, cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate that ensured the passing of the American Rescue Act.

has cast more tie-breaking votes than any other Vice president in US history - she is responsible for many of the achievements of the Biden administration actually passing the Senate.

created task forces on corruption and human trafficking.

created a women's empowerment program.

has criticized Israel's actions during the current conflict in Gaza and called for an immediate ceasefire.

[crookedfandomquill]

This is very situational, and sadly may not be realistic for everyone, but I need y’all to understand that a very important part of political activism is fucking talking to your conservative or moderate friends and family.

My dad voted for Trump in 2016. He’s a middle class white evangelical from Arkansas. He raised me with conservative Christian values, just like his parents raised him. When he voted Trump, he was holding his nose, but he didn’t feel too bad about it, and went on to vote red down the ticket in the 2018 midterms, as well.

But I started college in 2017. Higher education and independence changed everything for me, and I went home over holidays and summers with fire in my belly and a thousand arguments ready at the drop of a hat, to my father’s dismay.

I remember crying in my room after emotional, intense arguments with him. I told him over and over that I felt betrayed by his choice to vote for a man who admitted to sexually assaulting women, who built his platform on dehumanizing immigrants and the disabled, who spread overtly-racist rhetoric, who flouted the values of kindness and self-discipline that I’d been raised on. And my dad always had some justification about the “greater good”: fighting against abortion, bolstering the economy, getting other Christian politicians into office.

But over time, as we grew further apart and I lost my will to discuss anything with him at all, he softened. He started asking me why I thought the way I did about the things we disagreed about. He would listen to my answers without interruption, and mull them over afterward instead of expressing his own opinion. And all the while, he watched the Trump presidency become cruel and absurd and devastating.

The first time he openly expressed regret to me, I had come home for a weekend after Kavanaugh was confirmed to SCOTUS. My dad realized he had helped elect a man who preyed on women… and that man had opened the door to more predators. I can’t tell you what it felt like for him to admit that he’d made a mistake, not just in voting for Trump but in defending him for so long. We kept arguing, but it was more debating than fighting. I knew he was capable of seeing my side of things, even if it took a while, and he knew I wasn’t just a sensitive college student with shallow new ideas about the world.

And then 2020 hit. Specifically, George Floyd was murdered, and the events that followed played out on the national stage. My dad was incredibly shaken by it. He asked me if I had any books from college about racial issues. I loaned him The New Jim Crow, one of the required readings for my Race and the Law class. Then I gave him Just Mercy. Then he watched the documentary 13th. Then he joined a racial harmony group he learned about through one of the few Black families at our church and insisted our whole family come. He held up signs at a protest against Confederate monuments in our conservative southern town. In three years, he went from defending Trump’s comments about “Black-on-Black crime” to publicly advocating for racial justice and opposing the death penalty.

We went together to vote in the 2020 primaries. I couldn’t help asking who he’d voted for; I didn’t even know if he’d asked for the Republican or Democratic ticket. He admitted he’d voted for Bernie. fucking. Sanders, then made me promise not to tell my grandma he’d voted liberal. When the election rolled around in November, he voted Biden. I’m sure he held his nose to do it, just like he held his nose voting in 2016. But I know he doesn’t regret it.

I am, of course, unbelievably lucky to have a parent who loved me enough, and was empathetic enough, to choose his relationship with me over his strongly-held opinions. He kept searching for truth because, as much as he’ll deny it, he’s a very smart and curious person. No degree of intelligence or curiosity makes you immune to propaganda, especially if you were raised not to question the party line. It’s easy to dismiss our conservative, conspiracy-pilled loved ones as stupid, hypocritical, and cruel. Sometimes they are. But sometimes they aren’t. Sometimes they will bend to keep their relationships from breaking. Sometimes, if they can be made to understand that their beliefs and actions are harming someone they love, they will make concessions. And sometimes they just need one person in their life to put a foot down, to be vulnerable and assertive and argumentative, to bring the impact of their politics close to home.

As the most important election of our lifetimes approaches, do not put peace over progress. If you have someone like my dad, someone who is good-willed and smart and loves you more than their own opinions, tell them how you feel. Tell them what their choices will mean for you, for your friends, for your community. Tell them what they could lose: your trust, your affection, your respect. Don’t avoid conflict if it could be productive. Because my conflict with my dad didn’t just win him over–it won over my moderate mom and one of my conservative brothers. And it put us in community with other like-minded people and led my parents to a healthier and kinder faith.

All of this to say, there is hope in conflict. There is hope in our relationships with people who think differently from us. There is hope in exposing your fear and anger and pain to people you love. And hope is a form of activism.

[wilwheaton]

This fucking asshole.

Who voted against conviction in Trump's first impeachment.

Who confirmed Brett Kavanaugh and gaslighted the nation about it.

Who expects us all to believe that she is shocked -- shocked -- to just learn now, in the far off future year of 2023, that she's been enabling, protecting, and promoting Fascism.

Get fucked, you piece of shit. You did this. You own this.

[booasaur]

Remember during the 2016 elections, we were so scared of what Trump might do? How afraid we were for Roe but were told by so many people, pro-choice people even, that it was such settled law and it would be such a flashpoint, they'd never touch it. Don't overreact, you sound hysterical, this fearmongering is ruining your credibility. Hell, maybe worry for gay marriage, but abortion? No chance.

We watched Kavanaugh and ACB confirmed with increasing trepidation and STILL there was so much shock when the Dobbs leak happened.

Remember that feeling of knowing what was going to happen, because of your experience and knowledge, and nobody believing you till it was too late? And the very people who smugly shut you up pivoting and continuing to act like the authority, that, ah, yes, now was the time to worry?

This guy above represents the mainstream Western narrative since Israel killed the World Central Kitchen aid workers.

Somehow, after everything we've already seen, Israel was still getting the benefit of the doubt. After killing hundreds of aid workers already, mostly Palestinian, after killing more than 15,000 children, after killing multiple people waving white flags. After literally a scenario where a Red Crescent ambulance arranged safe passage with the IDF--just as this WCKitchen convoy had--to rescue a 6 year old child and ending up bombed.

Why didn't the world listen before? Israel didn't suddenly change, only perceptions have. They're the same now as they were three days ago, as they have been for the last months, years, decades. This wasn't an escalation, it was an inevitability.

Chef José Andrés, who runs the WCKitchen, and recently a vocal critic of Israel, was actually strongly defending them earlier. I saw someone call that Western naivety, but... is it simply being too naive, too trusting, when your good faith is only extended to one side? Isn't that just bias? Now Pelosi is signing a letter to stop weapon transfers to Russia when she was accusing protesters of being paid by Russia? Now, Western governments are saying this is too much?

I'll take any help we can get in stopping this onslaught, but these recent shifts came too late to save so many, including the WCKitchen workers. What changed for so many people now? We can't ignore why THIS was so many people's red line when tens of thousands of Palestinians weren't. Not only would it be an injustice to them but until this bias is interrogated how are we going to stop this or from repeating if the same wrong ass people are making the same decisions with the same worldview?

[qqueenofhades]

I KNOW he’s gonna find a way to worm his way out of it like the Worlds Biggest Bitch Baby that he is but… the thought of watching our future president absolutely eviscerate that orange sack of pond scum in a debate on national television make me feel indescribable joy. The mere thought of it makes me feel A L I V E.

I hope that if he refuses to debate her, she still stands up there by herself, looks directly into the camera and lists all the ways he’s a Scaredy Little Punk Ass Bitch.

Listen, Democrats might still have some understandable nerves (though listen to me, LISTEN TO ME: this is NOT THE TIME FOR MORE PANIC, THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO TALK ABOUT HOW SCARY THIS IS, WE KNOW! WE KNOW! THIS IS THE TIME TO GET TF IN FORMATION AND DO YOUR GODDAMN JOB!) but let me say this, the Republicans are LOSING it. They put ALL their chips on facing Sleepy Old Joe who don't talk so good anymore, and suddenly they have a 59-year-old lawyer and prosecutor who literally spent her whole elected career going after sex pests, frauds, and felons. (We remember how she made Brett Kavanaugh fucking cry at his confirmation hearing, right?) And suddenly, they have to bring it against Kamala. GODSPEED, DIPSHITS.

So yes, Trump is already whining SO hard about all the money they "wasted" going after Biden, laying the groundwork to escape getting his ass handed to him at the next debate, got stuck with a terriblawful VP pick (even Fucking FOX NEWS cut away from Vance's rally the other day because it was so boring) and suddenly realizing that he spent so much effort to make this election about age and mental competency when... now it's him. WHAT NOW, FUCKFACES. WHAT. NOW.

I'd also like to point out that abortion rights are going to be a HUGE issue, they have won everywhere they have been on the ballot (including in very red states) post-Dobbs, they will be on the ballot in several more important states (including Fucking Florida, not that I actually think we'll win there), and Kamala has a great record as a defender of reproductive freedom. Biden did his best, bless him, but sometimes the Old Catholic Man still leaped out. So the absolute fucking schadenfreude of having a black female president BEAT TRUMP IN A POST-DOBBS ELECTION??? MAGNIFICENT.

(As @silverbirching says: we wonder how many minutes it will take SCOTUS to row back the "president god-king" ruling if Kamala wins. We're guessing 15. That is, if Joe does not finally just embrace the fact that presidents are immune AND he is leaving office, and send Alito, Thomas, and Kav on a "special indefinite vacation" as an inauguration present.)

I am not overconfident. I know this is unprecedented. I know we don't have much time, and how hard this will be. This is not 2016 or 2020, and we all have to do the work and not let up. But if the Handmaid's Tale party is literally now trying to make "Kamala doesn't have children because she's an Evul Feminist" into their main line of attack, all I say is, Please proceed, chucklefucks. I'm sure that will go great.

[dhaaruni]

Every time I see people crow about how wealthy white women will be protected and helped out by their powerful fathers and husbands even when abortion (and of late, interstate travel to access abortion care in other states) is illegal, I feel compelled to point out that after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, the daughter of a wealthy, well-connected Republican man, accused Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, her own father shook the hand of Kavanaugh's father at their shared golf club and congratulated him on his son's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Men whose lifeblood is preserving the patriarchy don't entertain exceptions, even for their daughters and wives. At the end of the day, they don't see women as people, even those they purport to love, and consider them at best, accessories and at worst, problems to be handled.

[porterdavis]

LFG

Alrighty, I've had a day or two to get my bearings back after being away. I see there's been news.

First off, major respect to Joe Biden. If he were still the Joe of 2020 I would die on the beaches for him. The good he has done, not just legislatively but morally in restoring dignity and grace to the White House, is immeasurable. Getting old is not a failure and not a character flaw. It happens. It took a few beats but Joe came to see he has lost a step or two, and instead of doubling down forever he made the impossible choice to step aside.

Now, let's look ahead a bit. If you went to central casting and asked for the best candidate to defeat Trump you'd get someone pretty much like Kamala Harris. She is almost perfectly tuned to take him on -- she prosecuted sex criminals, conmen, fraudsters, cheaters and Trump is all of those in one package. She is a brilliant speaker and debater (I'll make book right now Trump does not debate her). Just replay the Senate confirmation hearings of Kavanaugh and Barrett and you'll see what I mean.

People were understandably upset at getting the 2020 election redux, wanting different choices. Well, now there is one. Kamala will have the support of minorities, younger voters, women, and unions. The only thing that can beat her is a repeat of the misogynist, sexist attacks that were employed against Hillary in 2016. Throw in racist DEI attacks and the water will be treacherous. Voter suppression, lies, smears, social media campaigns by foreign actors, will all be directed at her.

Yet I maintain if America keeps her eyes on the prize she will have the first woman President (albeit long overdue). Men have screwed the pooch for centuries. Let women have a turn at the helm. It's time.

[partisan-by-default]

Christine Blasey Ford had alleged an assault by Kavanaugh when they were teenagers, involving Kavanaugh locking her in a room, climbing on top of her, attempting to remove her clothing, and covering her mouth to keep her from screaming. A second woman, Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale as an undergraduate with Kavanaugh, alleged that he’d exposed himself to her, waggling his penis in front of her face. Kavanaugh “categorically and unequivocally” denied the allegations, which both involved him being drunk.

At the time, Donald Trump himself promised the FBI would have “free rein” to conduct its inquiry, which the Justice Department assured would be “by the book.” The FBI investigation uncovered little and Senate Republicans used it as a fig leaf to confirm the justice, with then-majority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell insisting: “The FBI report did not corroborate any of the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh.”

But a new report from the office of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) finds that the FBI investigation was “flawed and incomplete,” the agency failed to follow up on leads that could have shed light on Kavanaugh’s alleged misbehavior, and the FBI explicitly did not pursue corroborating evidence. Whitehouse chairs the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts.

Far from giving the FBI “free rein,” the report finds that the Trump White House exercised “total control” over the scope of the investigation, as the administration sought to “kneecap” the FBI probe, while misleading the Senate and the public. Perhaps most egregious, calls by the public into an FBI “tip line” about Kavanaugh were never probed by the FBI. Instead, “all tips related to Kavanaugh were forwarded to the White House without investigation.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Clay Bennett, Chattanooga Times Free Press

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 1, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 02, 2024

Today the United States Supreme Court overthrew the central premise of American democracy: that no one is above the law. 

It decided that the president of the United States, possibly the most powerful person on earth, has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for crimes committed as part of the official acts at the core of presidential powers. The court also said it should be presumed that the president also has immunity for other official acts as well, unless that prosecution would not intrude on the authority of the executive branch.

This is a profound change to our fundamental law—an amendment to the Constitution, as historian David Blight noted. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said that a president needs such immunity to make sure the president is willing to take “bold and unhesitating action” and make unpopular decisions, although no previous president has ever asserted that he is above the law or that he needed such immunity to fulfill his role. Roberts’s decision didn’t focus at all on the interest of the American people in guaranteeing that presidents carry out their duties within the guardrails of the law. 

But this extraordinary power grab does not mean President Joe Biden can do as he wishes. As legal commentator Asha Rangappa pointed out, the court gave itself the power to determine which actions can be prosecuted and which cannot by making itself the final arbiter of what is “official” and what is not. Thus any action a president takes is subject to review by the Supreme Court, and it is reasonable to assume that this particular court would not give a Democrat the same leeway it would give Trump. 

There is no historical or legal precedent for this decision. The Declaration of Independence was a litany of complaints against King George III designed to explain why the colonists were declaring themselves free of kings; the Constitution did not provide immunity for the president, although it did for members of Congress in certain conditions, and it provided for the removal of the president for “high crimes and misdemeanors”—what would those be if a president is immune from prosecution for his official acts? The framers worried about politicians’ overreach and carefully provided for oversight of leaders; the Supreme Court today smashed through that key guardrail. 

Presidential immunity is a brand new doctrine. In February 2021, explaining away his vote to acquit Trump for inciting an insurrection, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who had also protected Trump in his first impeachment trial in 2019, said: “Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office…. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation, and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”

But it was not just McConnell who thought that way. At his confirmation hearing in 2005, now–Chief Justice John Roberts said: “I believe that no one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution, and statutes.” 

In his 2006 confirmation hearings, Samuel Alito said: “There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.” 

And in 2018, Brett Kavanaugh told the Senate: “No one’s above the law in the United States, that’s a foundational principle…. We’re all equal before the law…. The foundation of our Constitution was that…the presidency would not be a monarchy…. [T]he president is not above the law, no one is above the law.”

Now they have changed that foundational principle for a man who, according to White House officials during his term, called for the execution of people who upset him and who has vowed to exact vengeance on those he now thinks have wronged him. Over the past weekend, Trump shared an image on social media saying that former Representative Liz Cheney (R-WY), who sat on the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol, was guilty of treason and calling for “televised military tribunals” to try her. 

Today, observers illustrated what Trump’s newly declared immunity could mean. Political scientist Norm Ornstein pointed out that Trump could “order his handpicked FBI Director to arrest and jail his political opponents. He can order the IRS to put liens on the property of media companies who criticize him and jail reporters and editors.” Legal analyst Joyce White Vance noted that a president with such broad immunity could order the assassination of Supreme Court justices, and retired military leader Mark Hertling wrote that he was “trying to figure out how a commander can refuse an illegal order from someone who is issuing it as an official act.” 

Asha Rangappa wrote: “According to the Court, a President could literally provide the leader of a hostile adversary with intelligence needed to win a conflict in which we are involved, or even attack or invade the U.S., and not be prosecuted for treason, because negotiating with heads of state is an exclusive Art. II function. In case you were wondering.” Trump is currently under indictment for retaining classified documents. “The Court has handed Trump, if he wins this November, carte blanche to be a ‘dictator on day one,’ and the ability to use every lever of official power at his disposal for his personal ends without any recourse,” Rangappa wrote. “This election is now a clear-cut decision between democracy and autocracy. Vote accordingly.”

Trump’s lawyers are already challenging Trump’s conviction in the election interference case in which a jury found him guilty on 34 counts. Over Trump’s name on social media, a post said the decision was “BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND WISE, AND CLEARS THE STENCH FROM THE BIDEN TRIALS AND HOAXES, ALL OF THEM, THAT HAVE BEEN USED AS AN UNFAIR ATTACK ON CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S POLITICAL OPPONENT, ME. MANY OF THESE FAKE CASES WILL NOW DISAPPEAR, OR WITHER INTO OBSCURITY. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife was deeply involved in the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, also took a shot at the appointment of special counsels to investigate such events. Thomas was not the only Justice whose participation in this decision was likely covered by a requirement that he recuse himself: Alito has publicly expressed support for the attempt to keep Trump in office against the will of voters. Trump appointed three of the other justices granting him immunity—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—to the court.

In a dissent in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that because of the majority’s decision, "[t]he relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."

“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy,” she wrote, “I dissent.” 

Today’s decision destroyed the principle on which this nation was founded, that all people in the United States of America should be equal before the law.

The name of the case is “Donald J. Trump v. United States.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[thebreakfastgenie]

My take on "white woman tears" is that the tears are real. There are people who can cry at will, but tears (or the lack of them) are most often an involuntary physiological response.

I think in most cases it's just that being told you're wrong and hurting someone is a humiliating experience, especially when it's true. Specific to the context of calling out racism, a lot of white people don't really understand systemic racism and see it more as there are The RacistsTM who are the bad people. I think the popular white American image of a racist is, like, George Wallace. This especially applies when you are dealing with white people who think of themselves as tolerant and are not only being criticized, they are being asked to reevaluate what may be a pillar of their sense of self.

The real issue with white women who burst into tears when they're called out for racism is that they have re-centered the conversation around their feelings. For white people who are actually committed to antiracism, one of the basic steps is learning that systemic racism is more important than their personal feelings. People are more likely to notice rank they lack than rank they have an abundance of, so white women tend to be more aware of how they are affected by misogyny than how they uphold racism. Once again, part of antiracist work is becoming conscious of that. You see this too with working class white people who have a negative emotional reaction to being told they have white privilege, because their understanding of their lives revolves around the economic privilege they lack.

The way "white woman tears" is so often framed is "[white] women are manipulative cunts who can all burst into tears on cue." This perpetuates misogynistic myths about women. It's also worth noting that privileged white people bursting into tears when faced with the possibility of consequences for their actions is not a female phenomenon. The poster child is Brett Kavanaugh, who is not only a man but a man who burst into tears when he was called out for sexually assaulting at least one woman, and he did not even face any real consequences. I also don't think Brett Kavanugh was crying on cue. When you've been protected from consequences your whole life, even the slightest possibility that you might face them now is a very emotional experience. His tears did not make me feel bad for him in the slightest, but that doesn't mean they were fake.

Which brings me around to another thought, which I think a more productive way to address this would be to stop treating tears like an emotional trump card. You don't have to comfort someone just because they are crying, especially if you know they're crying because they've been rightly called out. Crying is also not the only manifestation of negative emotional reaction to confronting racism. Arguing and defensively talking over people of color frequently comes from the same place. I think we tend to associate arguing with white men, and therefore see it as more logical, but it isn't.

I also want to acknowledge white women crying is especially frustrating for women of color and Black women in particular, because they have been forced since birth to limit their emotional expression. To return to Supreme Court examples, I cannot even imagine the media reaction if Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had shown any emotional response whatsoever to the Republican senators who would not stop talking about child exploitation materials during her confirmation hearing.

I also want to be absolutely clear that white emotions after being called out for racism should not ever be the responsibility of people of color. Antiracist work can be very uncomfortable for white people. It is our responsibility to work that out.

[mariacallous]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/sep/17/samuel-alito-leonard-leo-gloria-von-thurn-und-taxis-napa-institute

Well then.

The supreme court justice Samuel Alito and a German aristocrat and “networker of the far right” from whom Alito accepted expensive concert tickets, are both linked to an ultra-conservative Catholic US group whose board members include the dark money impresario Leonard Leo and the founder of a hardline anti-abortion Christian group, documentation reviewed by the Guardian shows.

In 2018, Gloria von Thurn und Taxis, told the New York Times about attending a dinner hosted in Rome by James Harvey, an American cardinal and hardliner, and sponsored by the Napa Institute, a group founded by Timothy R Busch, a conservative Catholic businessman and political activist.

Leo, 59, is an activist and fundraiser who worked on the confirmations of all six rightwing justices who now dominate the supreme court, Alito among them. Now controlling billions of dollars in funding for rightwing groups, Leo is a director of the Napa Institute Legal Foundation, also known as Napa Legal Institute, and the Napa Institute Support Foundation.

Also among Napa Legal Institute directors is Alan Sears, founder of the Alliance Defending Freedom. The ADF was the principal driver of Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case in which the supreme court ended the federal right to abortion, with Alito writing the ruling handed down in June 2022.

In 2017, the Napa Institute hosted a two-day symposium at the Trump hotel in Washington, during which Alito attended a dinner.

Writing for the Washington Post, John Gehring, an author and reporter, said the symposium “mixed traditional Catholic religious practices with moments that felt uncomfortably nationalistic”, including a “reading in the rosary booklet from [the Confederate general] Robert E Lee that [seemed] … stunningly insensitive at best … at a time when the ‘alt-right’ and white nationalism are basking in the glow of renewed attention and proximity to power”.

Alito is not the only supreme court justice with links to the Napa Institute. In September 2021, as part of a series sponsored by the group, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at the University of Notre Dame.

“The court was thought to be the least dangerous branch and we may have become the most dangerous,” Thomas said, attacking judges he deemed to be “venturing into areas we should not have entered into” – meaning politics.

Thomas and Alito, however, have been the subject of numerous reports about undeclared gifts from rightwing donors, fueling an ethics crisis now stoked by news of Alito’s acceptance of concert tickets valued at $900 from von Thurn und Taxis.

Von Thurn und Taxis, 64, is a former punk turned billionaire, also known as Princess TNT, with close links to the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party. News of her gift to Alito was accompanied by reporting of further links between the two, including a picture of Alito and another rightwing justice, Brett Kavanaugh, posing at the supreme court in 2019 with the German socialite; Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, a German hardliner; and Brian Brown, a prominent US anti-LGBTQ+ campaigner.

Von Thurn und Taxis told German media that Alito and his wife, Martha-Ann, attended a concert at her castle in Bavaria last year as “private friends”. In emails to the Guardian, the aristocrat clarified: “We never speak about politics nor religion at the table, because we believe it limits the possibility to make friends.”

The socialite, who rejects the label “networker of the far right”, also said it would “never occur” to her to speak about “touchy subjects” like abortion with someone she knew socially, and claimed not to know that “the Dobbs decision” referred to the supreme court abortion rights ruling written by Alito.

In a speech at the National Conservatism Conference in Brussels last April, von Thurn und Taxis said European leaders were “financ[ing] the killing of our offspring” in an apparent reference to the availability of reproductive rights in Europe. She added: “Does this make any sense? Is there some kind of racism? Are we not supposed to reproduce?”

Alito and his wife have also been outspoken about abortion and other hot-button cultural issues. In June, the progressive activist Lauren Windsor released recordings in which Justice Alito agreed that the US should “return … to a place of godliness” and said, “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left”. Regarding her supposed persecution from those on the left, his wife said: “Look at me, look at me. I’m German. I’m from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me, I’m gonna give it back to you.”

Caroline Ciccone, president of Accountable.US, which campaigns for court reform and which highlighted links between the German socialite, the Napa Institute and Alito, said: “When a supreme court justice like Samuel Alito pals around with influential rightwing figures like Princess Gloria von Thurn und Taxis and Leonard Leo, it raises concerns about fairness and impartiality.

“These relationships aren’t just about gifts. They reflect a deeper effort to manipulate our legal system in ways that could impact the rights of everyday people.”

Ciccone added, “What’s disturbing is that this happens behind closed doors – at parties at the Bavarian castle – away from public scrutiny. We’re talking about relationships that can affect everything, from reproductive rights to environmental protections” – both the subject of recent supreme court rulings widely seen as victories for the political right.

“The American people deserve a judiciary that serves justice impartially,” Ciccone said, “not one that can be bought.”

[alwaysbewoke]

Groups aligned with the conservative legal movement and its financial architect, Leonard Leo, are working to promote a publicly funded Christian school in Oklahoma, hoping to create a test case to change the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma is pushing to create America’s first religious school entirely funded by taxpayers: the St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. It received preliminary approval from the state’s charter school board in June and, if it survives legal challenges, would open the door for other states to follow suit. Behind the effort to change the law are Christian conservative groups and legal teams who, over the past decade, have benefited from the billion-dollar network of nonprofits largely built by Leo. One of these legal teams is the Alliance Defending Freedom, who’s representing the proposed school – and who also helped develop the arguments that led to the end of Roe v. Wade. More about Leo, who co-chairs the Federalist Society: ➡️ His network organized multi-million-dollar campaigns to support the confirmation of most of SCOTUS’ six conservative justices. ➡️ Leo himself advised Trump on the nominations of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and others. ➡️ He’s drawn increasing criticism for recruiting judicial nominees, using his non-profit war chest to promote their confirmations and then funding legal groups to challenge longstanding precedents. ADF said they’re representing the proposed school “in order to ensure people of faith are not treated like second-class citizens.” But they face a significant amount of critics, including from their own GOP and religious circles. State AG Gentner Drummond, a Republican, is suing to stop it; so is another group that includes faith leaders who warn it would erode a pillar of American democracy.

Christofascism coming in hot. Elections have consequences.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Stephen Wolf at Daily Kos Elections:

On Monday, the Supreme Court’s far-right supermajority dealt a critical blow to democracy by granting presidents far-reaching immunity from criminal prosecution for "official" acts, eviscerating the rule of law in a country that was founded to end the rule of kings. The 6-3 decision clears the way for Donald Trump to escape justice in his ongoing federal trials and to become a dictator on "day one" should he return to office in 2025.

Trump won the presidency in 2016 by prevailing in the Electoral College despite losing the popular vote to his Democratic opponent, and he could do so again in 2024. Like Trump, the court's far-right majority itself was built on another undemocratic institution: minority rule in the U.S. Senate. Daily Kos Elections calculations found that Senate Republicans last won more votes or represented more Americans than Democrats in 1998, but the GOP has controlled the upper chamber nearly half the time since then. This was the case from 2000 through 2006, and again from 2014 through 2020, covering six of the last 12 federal elections. This minority rule let Republican presidents appoint five Supreme Court justices—a majority of the bench. Trump appointed three—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—while George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote for his first term, appointed the other two—John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Although a Democratic-held Senate in 1991 confirmed the sixth far-right justice, George H.W. Bush appointee Clarence Thomas, the senators voting to approve Thomas represented fewer people than those opposed.

Monday's ruling is one of the most egregious decisions in the history of a court that has repeatedly undermined democracy to help Republicans in recent decades. Since 2000, the conservative-controlled court helped hand Bush the presidency, gutted the Voting Rights Act, blocked federal courts from overturning partisan gerrymandering, and ushered in a flood of money in politics. But while these past rulings helped bring us to our current moment, Monday's decision escalated the GOP's assault on the constitutional order to an unprecedented level.

Ever since the Supreme Court handed down the infamous Bush v. Gore decision in 2000 that awarded George W. Bush the Presidency, the conservative majority of the court has given Republicans an unearned advantage over the years by breaking the court and our democracy to enact GOP minority rule by court fiat.

Monday’s despicable and insulting Trump v. United States decision continues the long line of anti-democracy actions by the MAGA majority.

[wilwheaton]

"Justice Elena Kagan memorably castigated him for treating 'judging as scorekeeping,' whining about 'how unfair it is' when he loses, and repeating the same bad arguments 'at a higher volume.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly accused him of outright dishonesty by misrepresenting precedent and dangling false promises. In a fed-up dissent in just her first term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared a Kavanaugh majority opinion to the children’s book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. [Samul] Alito’s rebuttal to Kavanaugh’s dissent in Sackett v. EPAconsisted of exactly one sentence: Kavanaugh’s argument, Alito wrote, 'cannot be taken seriously.'"

Justices are 'losing patience': Brett Kavanaugh skewered as a 'lightweight' in brutal analysis

Hold up.

This guy?

“The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque character assassination will dissuade confident and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country, and as we all know, in the political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around.”

This piece of shit?

The guy who spent his entire life as a right wing activist judge, who was part of the Brooks Brothers “riot”, snarled and barked and insulted the Senate Judiciary Committee during his farcical confirmation hearing, who lied repeatedly about his history of sexual assault, his gambling debts, and threatened to explicitly hurt people who he views as antagonistic to him ... turns out to be an intellectual lightweight in the mold of Thomas? He doesn’t give a flying fuck about law or justice or precedent, he just wants to hurt people he doesn’t like under the color of law?

Wow. None of us saw that coming.

[cmesinic]

Too late. The God Kavanaugh sits upon his mountain of empty beer cans, welding his paid-for opinions over our nation.