#U.S. Justice Clarence Thomas

[minnesotafollower]

Congress Fails To Adopt Important Immigration Legislation

Congress Fails To Adopt Important Immigration Legislation

Previous posts documented Congress’ earlier failure this Session to adopt (a) the Afghan Adjustment Act to improve the legal status of Afghan evacuees in the U.S. and (b) important bipartisan immigration reform, one of which was offered by Senators Kyrsten Sinema (ex-Democrat & now Independent) and Thom Tillis (Rep., NC) that would have addressed the legal fate of so-called Dreamers and provided…

[sbrown82]

Oh shit! Here we go!!!

[filosofablogger]

Integrity and Trust -- Gone!

Integrity and Trust.  Over the past year or so, the Supreme Court, once the most trusted of the three branches of government, has lost both its integrity and the trust of the public.  I turn to the wisdom of Robert Reich for his ideas on how to restore integrity and trust to the Court … Three reforms to restore trust in the Supreme Court On the anniversary of Dobbs, and the revelations about…

[mugiwara-lucy]

One of the main reasons why I’m voting for Kamala Harris is because sometime within the next couple of years there will be two open seats in the Supreme Court.

Let’s not forget one of the judges that Trump appointed in his first term OVERTURNED ROE V WADE. And the old fucker BRAGS about it:

If he gets back into office, I’m sure we can all anticipate AILEEN CANNON being one of those Supreme Court justices. And if you all don’t know who she is, she threw out the case where Trump STOLE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS FROM THE WHITE HOUSE:

In a nutshell, if Trump gets into office, he will appoint two younger Supreme Court justices younger than Clarence Thomas, meaning the Supreme Court will be locked HARD RIGHT for AT LEAST 30 years.

By then, that means our potential children and grandchildren (if you even want to have kids) will have LESS RIGHTS THAN US.

Do you really want that?

That’s why I feel with Kamala Harris being President, we can BALANCE OUT the courts!

Please Vote Blue.

Thank You 🙏

[wilwheaton]

Moreover, recent revelations affirm that there are deep biases among the nakedly pro-Trump justices of this court and that Chief Justice John Roberts knew that when the court took the case. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito should have been recused under any standard of judicial ethics. We already knew that Thomas’ wife, Ginni, was entangled in the run-up to Jan. 6 and was a witness in the congressional investigation of the insurrection. Last Thursday, the shocking news broke that an upside-down flag, a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” conspiracy, flew at Alito’s house shortly after the Jan. 6 insurrection. “Word of the flag filtered back to the court,” reported The New York Times, and yet the incident was hidden from the public for years. Had Alito and Thomas been recused, it would have required the votes of the four other Republican-appointed justices, including Roberts, to take the case. At a minimum, given Roberts’ repeated statements of concern for the credibility of the court, he owes the public a transparent accounting of how Alito and Thomas can be allowed to continue to sit on this case. The public is due similar explanations for their participation in the court’s decision to hear Fischer v. U.S., which challenges convictions of insurrectionists under the obstruction-of-an-official-proceeding statute also at issue in the Trump prosecution.

New York’s speedy Trump trial is a rebuke of the Supreme Court

[robertreich]

Billionaires Don’t Want You to Know About This Supreme Court Case

A majority of Americans support a wealth tax. But, surprise, surprise, the wealthy Republican megadonors who’ve been plying Supreme Court justices with gifts and vacations do not. And if those justices don’t recuse themselves from a case I’m about to explain, it will be a grave conflict of interest and potentially block Congress from ever enacting a wealth tax.

Moore v. U.S. concerns a one-time tax charged in 2017 on profitable foreign investments regardless of whether investors cashed them in.

The plaintiffs argue that the tax is unlawful under the 16th Amendment, which gives Congress the power to tax incomes.

Right now the super wealthy can take advantage of increases in the value of their stock portfolios by using stock as collateral to borrow all the money they need instead of taking taxable income. It’s a way to have their cake and eat it too.

If the Supreme Court buys the argument that the Constitution does not give Congress the power to tax increases in the value of investments, that would make it impossible to ever pass a wealth tax.

But here’s the kicker: This case raises profound conflicts of interest on the Supreme Court.

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas both accepted luxury vacations from billionaires who stand to gain financially and are tied to conservative political groups that are responsible for appealing the case.  

No wonder Americans don’t trust the Supreme Court.

So what can you do?

First, share this video to spread the word about this little-known case.

Second, contact your representatives, and urge them to demand that justices with conflicts of interest recuse themselves.

And third, if your representative doesn’t support a wealth tax to combat inequality, replace them with somebody who does.

With so much at stake, now is not the time to sit on the sidelines.

[rederiswrites]

Why are we afraid of a Trump presidency? Well, here's the beginning of political historian Heather Cox Richardson's daily writeup:

April 30, 2024 (Tuesday) This morning, Time magazine published a cover story by Eric Cortellessa about what Trump is planning for a second term. Based on two interviews with Trump and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisors, the story lays out Trump’s conviction that he was “too nice” in his first term and that he would not make such a mistake again. Cortellessa writes that Trump intends to establish “an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.” He plans to use the military to round up, put in camps, and deport more than 11 million people. He is willing to permit Republican-dominated states to monitor pregnancies and prosecute people who violate abortion bans. He will shape the laws by refusing to release funds appropriated by Congress (as he did in 2019 to try to get Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to smear Hunter Biden). He would like to bring the Department of Justice under his own control, pardoning those convicted of attacking the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and ending the U.S. system of an independent judiciary. In a second Trump presidency, the U.S. might not come to the aid of a European or Asian ally that Trump thinks isn’t paying enough for its own defense. Trump would, Cortelessa wrote, “gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.” To that list, former political director of the AFL-CIO Michael Podhorzer added on social media that if Trump wins, “he could replace [Supreme Court justices Clarence] Thomas, [Samuel] Alito, and 40+ federal judges over 75 with young zealots.” “I ask him, Don’t you see why many Americans see such talk of dictatorship as contrary to our most cherished principles?” Cortellessa wrote. No, Trump said. “‘I think a lot of people like it.”

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard Donald Trump’s immunity claim in his federal criminal trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election Thursday, and the conservative majority is likely going to give Donald Trump what he wants: a delay of the trial until after the election. If Trump wins again, the conservatives have essentially signaled that they would be open to blanket immunity for him against any future criminal charges.   The fact that Supreme Court justices are suggesting that the president is above the law proves why the court must be reformed. Four of the justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch—even went so far as to suggest that special counsel Jack Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional, and they reinforced Trump’s argument that the president is immune. Kavanaugh even told Michael Dreeben, a lawyer from Smith’s office, that it’s a “serious constitutional question whether a criminal statute can apply to the president’s criminal acts.”

That would be the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for the chief executive, rubber stamped by the highest court of the land. It’s worth remembering that Thomas refused to recuse himself from this—and most of the Trump election interference cases—despite the fact that his wife, Ginni Thomas, was deeply involved in Trump’s coup attempt. When she testified to the Jan. 6 special congressional committee, she maintained that the election was stolen.  His failure to recuse himself comes after a new ethics code has supposedly been enforced, saying that “a Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” So much for that suggestion from Chief Justice John Roberts. His code has no teeth, which is yet another reason why ethics reform—and indeed court reform and expansion—is essential. 

Joan McCarter writes in Daily Kos that the Trump v. United States "immunity" case is a good reason to reform and expand SCOTUS.

[simply-ivanka]

BREAKING: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas raised the question to Trump’s lawyers if they have challenged special counsel Jack Smith's authority to bring charges against the former president, which could provide a loophole that may disqualify Smith.

Mr. Sauer said that Trump attorneys have not raised such concerns "directly" in the current case at the Supreme Court however, Trump’s attorney John Sauer agrees with the "analysis provided by AG Edwin Meese and AG Michael B. Mukasey," referring to the amicus brief the two former attorneys general submitted to the Supreme Court on March 19.

In the brief, the two attorneys general argue that Mr. Smith "does not have authority to conduct the underlying prosecution."

[filosofablogger]

More Memes -- Laugh, Growl, and 🙄

Only recently did I start paying attention to memes, and setting aside some to share here.  Like the political cartoons, the memes are sometimes humorous, sometimes give us food for thought, and sometimes cause us to grrrrrrrowwwwllll.  Since it’s Sunday, the end of the week, I thought I’d skip ranting for one day and just share the few memes from this week’s collection!  Relax and enjoy your…

[follow-up-news]

The Supreme Court on Wednesdayallowed the Biden administration at least in the short term to enforce its latest attempt to curb climate-harming carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants that contribute to climate change. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, rejected emergency requests brought by Republican states led by West Virginia and various industry groups seeking to block the regulation. "We look forward to implementing this rule, which is based on proven and cost-effective control technologies, to secure up to $370 billion in climate and public health net benefits over the next two decades," an Environmental Protection Agency spokesperson said in a statement Wednesday. The Supreme Court is often skeptical of major agency actions, but it has bucked that reputation in recent weeks. It has now rejected three different efforts to block major air pollution regulations, with the others involving methane and mercury. The brief court order Wednesday noted that conservative Justice Clarence Thomas would have granted the application, while fellow conservative Justice Samuel Alito did not participate. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, wrote a brief statement saying the applicants "have shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits as to at least some of their challenges." But he added that there is no need for the court to step in at this stage because the first compliance deadlines do not kick in until June. The case will now continue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. After it rules, the issue could go before the justices again.

[mugiwara-lucy]

Hello, everyone! While I am VERY proud of the Democrat voter turnout for Early and Mail In Ballots; here's ANOTHER thing to keep in mind.

Two of the Supreme Court's chairs will be up for grabs and the next president will be able to put in two new justices that are younger. Currently there's a 6-3 demographic in the Whitehouse with 6 being Republican and 3 being Democrat. SHould Kamala win, she can put two more Democrat court younger justices in and we'll be 5-3 (the five being Democrats!) and we'll have a less corrupt SCOTUS.

Should Trump win......he'll stack the Supreme Court with younger justices and the Supreme Court will be locked HARD RIGHT for AT LEAST 30 years.......do we REALLY want that??

And keep in mind, one of the justices (Clarence Thomas) was talking about giving a look at gay marriage if he comes back into office.

And I bet one of the Supreme Court justices that Trump will put will be Aileen Cannon, the person who threw out Trump's stolen documents case. We ALL KNOW he stole those documents for nefarious reasons......do we REALLY want someone like that in office??

Here is the link below to register to vote along with the deadlines varying by state! Also, your own vote isn’t enough! Get as many people as you can to vote for Kamala be it your friends, cousins, parents, grandparents, old friends from high school and college, coworkers, boyfriends, girlfriends, husbands, wives, stepchildren (if they’re 18 and over) and the list goes on and on but every vote counts! ALSO PLEASE check your registration DAILY because MAGA WILL purge your voter registration!!!

And early voting has started! And if you don’t wanna vote on November 5th, Early Voting is another option! Like I said get as many people as you know and try early voting that way you can avoid MAGA fuckery on November 5th! Down below is a list of dates by state:

And Mail in Ballots are ANOTHER option I highly recommend!! And like I said get as many people as you can to take advantage of this option! BUT if you decide to go with Mail In/Absentee Ballots; PLEASE mail your ballots at the ACTUAL USPS office!! That way MAGAts won't fuck with it.

And if you’re an American who lives overseas; PLEASE use the option of voting overseas since I know every country other than North Korea, Russia and China do NOT want to see Trump’s stinky ass back in the Oval Office! Here’s a link below:

Like I said last night....because of Trump's first term, we had Roe v Wade, Affirmative Action and Chevron overturned. I bet all the money in my savings and checking accounts that Interracial Relationships, Women’s right to vote and Gay Rights will be done away with should he be back in office. BET MONEY.

We're doing well....let's NOT get complacent like 2016.

THANK YOU.

[wilwheaton]

"Clarence Thomas might not be the finest Justice money can buy, but he’s definitely bought," charges Moe Davis, the well-known retired U.S. Air Force colonel, attorney, educator, politician, and former administrative law judge. Former federal prosecutor and legal commentator Mimi Rocah, who is now he elected District Attorney for Westchester County, New York expressed disgust. "As a public servant who sacrifices donor $ (I don’t take donations from elected officials, PBAs, or attorneys with cases before my office), b/c I believe the justice system should be free from even the appearance of political influence, this sickens me." "Thomas and his billionaire pals have trashed the court’s reputation," observed author Mark Jacob, a former Chicago Tribune editor. "Corruption of the highest order," is how Heather Cox Richardson, the well-known historian, author and professor of history described Justice Thomas' alleged actions. "Personally, I’d go right to resign. It’s long overdue. And I’d revisit the cases he’s decided—including Citizens United and Shelby v Holder, which together handed our democracy to the rich—while we’re at it."

‘Corruption of the highest order’: Experts ‘sickened’ at ‘definitely bought’ Clarence Thomas and his ‘pay to play’ lifestyle

[odinsblog]

Clarence Thomas secretly accepted luxury trips from a major GOP donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

IN LATE JUNE 2019, right after the U.S. Supreme Court released its final opinion of the term, Justice Clarence Thomas boarded a large private jet headed to Indonesia. He and his wife were going on vacation: nine days of island-hopping in a volcanic archipelago on a superyacht staffed by a coterie of attendants and a private chef.

If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000. Fortunately for him, that wasn’t necessary: He was on vacation with real estate magnate and Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, who owned the jet — and the yacht, too.

Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni, front left, with Harlan Crow, back right, and others in Flores, Indonesia, in July 2019. Credit: via Instagram

For more than two decades, Thomas has accepted luxury trips virtually every year from the Dallas businessman without disclosing them, documents and interviews show. A public servant who has a salary of $285,000, he has vacationed on Crow’s superyacht around the globe. He flies on Crow’s Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive California all-male retreat, and to Crow’s sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically spends about a week every summer at Crow’s private resort in the Adirondacks.

The extent and frequency of Crow’s apparent gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

These trips appeared nowhere on Thomas’ financial disclosures. His failure to report the flights appears to violate a law passed after Watergate that requires justices, judges, members of Congress and federal officials to disclose most gifts, two ethics law experts said. He also should have disclosed his trips on the yacht, these experts said.

(continue reading)

[mariacallous]

The overturning of Roe v. Wade and this term’s Supreme Court abortion cases have understandably kept attention riveted on abortion. But while the abortion battle rages on, people are losing sight of the second front of the war to secure women’s reproductive autonomy: birth control.

As state abortion bans proliferate in the post-Roe era, the use of reliable birth control to prevent unintended pregnancies is more crucial than ever. Moreover, defenders of reproductive rights now must guard against an additional challenge—the offensive far-right conservatives are mounting against contraception.

Unplanned pregnancy is more common than most people realize. According to the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), 42% of all pregnancies are unintended, meaning that the pregnancy was either unwanted or seriously mistimed.

While abortion is an important line of defense in preventing unplanned parenthood, it should be a last resort. The easiest way to prevent unplanned parenthood is to prevent an unintended pregnancy from occurring in the first place.

There are compelling reasons to support the use of effective birth control. A long and robust economic literature has shown that improving access to contraception reduces maternal morbidity and mortality. It also leads to healthier babies, less child poverty, better living circumstances for children, and improved educational and career opportunities for women.

In addition, birth control offers the most politically unifying approach to secure women’s reproductive autonomy. While just over one-third of the U.S. public doesn’t think abortion should be legal under any or most circumstances, nearly 9 in 10 approve the use of contraception, including 86% of Republicans. Birth control is also a more effective way to reduce abortion incidence than current state-level abortion bans which so far have not translated into fewer abortions nationwide. But if unplanned pregnancies essentially disappeared, there would be vanishingly few abortions.

And yet, despite birth control’s benefits and broad popularity, some conservatives are now targeting contraception.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opened the door to these attacks when he argued that the same legal reasoning used to overturn Roe implies that “in future cases” the Court should “reconsider” Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark case that established the Constitutional right to contraception in 1965. Since then, legislation to ban or restrict access to certain forms of contraception has already been discussed or proposed in Arkansas, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, and Missouri.

The Heritage Foundation as part of its Project 2025 initiative has called for a potential future Trump administration to restrict access to certain types of birth control. When asked about the topic in a recent TV interview, former President Trump said he was “looking at” policies that would restrict access, adding that “some states are going to have different policy than others.” He later walked back those comments, but many of Trump’s actions as president, including his decision to halve the patient capacity of the Title X program that provides affordable birth control and related services, foreshadow what may be his real intentions.

Senator Chuck Schumer recently led an effort to codify the right to contraception nationwide. All but two Senate Republicans present voted against the measure.

Central to Republicans’ attacks against contraception have been efforts by anti-abortion religious groups to falsely equate certain forms of birth control with abortion. That position is contrary to the consensus among medical experts that contraception, unlike abortion, does not terminate pregnancy and instead prevents pregnancy from occurring in the first place. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, for example, has stated: “None of the FDA-approved contraceptive methods are abortifacients because they do not interfere with a pregnancy and are not effective after a fertilized egg has implanted successfully in the uterus.”

Amid far-right attacks, defenders of women’s reproductive autonomy should focus more attention on effective contraception.

As a safe and virtually foolproof form of birth control, the surging popularity of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) which includes IUDs and implants is especially promising. For a typical couple using a condom, the risk of pregnancy within five years is 63%. For those relying on the pill, it is 38%. With a LARC, it is less than 4%. LARCs change the default so that users can “set it and forget it” without losing sleep over concerns about getting pregnant.

Many women are taking notice. The share of women using LARCs increased sevenfold between 2002 and 2018. LARCs are now the third most common contraceptive method used by women after sterilization and the pill. Early evidence suggests more women and men are seeking out effective contraception including LARCs in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Beyond the increased use of LARCs, the first-ever over-the-counter birth control pill hit the shelves of major drug stores earlier this year. That is important because nearly one-third of women using the pill say they have missed taking their dosage because they were unable to get their next supply in time.

But what more could be done?

Primary care physicians should screen all women of reproductive age for their pregnancy intentions to encourage patients who don’t want to get pregnant to focus on the risks of sex and their contraceptive options for reducing them. We also need to ensure all healthcare providers, not just doctors, are trained in the use of LARCs, have them on hand, and can provide same day insertion. Where these approaches have been tried, unintended pregnancy and abortion rates have both declined dramatically.

In addition, more funding for Title X is needed. One rigorous study has shown that eliminating cost sharing for low-income patients seeking birth control would significantly reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions and save more than one billion dollars in Medicaid expenses in the first year alone.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade was a Pandora’s box that unleashed an invigorated assault on women’s fundamental freedoms. As the onslaught intensifies, defenders of women’s reproductive autonomy must fight back to fortify the first and strongest line of defense in protecting a woman’s right to choose if and when to seek a pregnancy.