#corrupt robert's court

[protoslacker]

Disturbing the peace

In overturning Chevron and in giving the president absolute immunity the Supreme Court has radically altered the American system of government. In some ways the authoritarian theocracy they've established bears resemblance to the Government of Iran. While these two decisions are especially significant they are a part of a long term project to remake the court with a decidedly Christian (nationalist) tilt.

There is a well known Bible verse in Luke 2:14 which is alternately translated in variations of "Peace on Earth goodwill towards men" and "Peace on Earth towards people of goodwill" (this article provides a balanced explantion).Lest one imagin the latter as being just another example of "cultural correctness" all of the oldest sources of Luke plainly favor this reading.

We might say of the appointed quintet of right-wing authoritarian justices that they are "people of good will." But I see little evidence that's true. And I propose that one of the best ways that people interested in restoring some semblance of democracy is to vocally point to the evidence that these justices are not people of good will at all.

[odinsblog]

This is an illegitimate and deeply corrupt Supreme Court

[contemplatingoutlander]

How to save the Supreme Court from Alito’s ethical malfeasance

The justice’s unconscionable violations of ethics demand the court be reformed.

Jennifer Rubin clearly explains why Alito went too far in allowing a symbol of the insurrection to fly over his home, and why the Roberts Court needs to stop slow-walking the presidential immunity decision if the Court is to regain any credibility. This is a gift🎁link so anyone can read the full article, even if they don't subscribe to The Washington Post.

Among the Supreme Court’s abominations — shredding precedent to obliterate reproductive freedom, financial impropriety, partisanship — none compares to the upside-down flag, identified with violent insurrectionists, that flew over the home of Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Ethics experts and lawyers (including former judges) of all stripes expressed their outrage. “His statement — which says his wife displayed a symbol associated with a failed coup to subvert democracy because she was offended by an anti-Trump sign one of her neighbors displayed — is so incoherent it is insulting to our collective intelligence,” constitutional law professor Leah Litman emails me. “And a Justice who resides in a house that displays symbols glorifying a coup should not participate in cases that will determine whether people who participated in said coup will face any accountability.” [...] Alito (alongside Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife encouraged coup plotters) has heard multiple insurrection-related cases, including the pending immunity case that could absolve Trump of criminal liability. In letting his home stand in solidarity with constitutional arsonists, Alito made a mockery of his oath to “faithfully and impartially discharge” his duties under the Constitution. Any other judge (especially one implicated in financial misconduct) would be compelled to resign and/or face the threat of impeachment. So what about Alito? Immediate Triage Unlike its speedy disposition of the 14th Amendment case (24 days after argument) and of many lesser matters, the court put the immunity case in deep freeze, making it near-impossible to try the ex-president before the next election....The Alito debacle only deepens the impression that the court has its thumb on the scale — or the brake — for Trump. [...] As constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe warns in an email to me, if Roberts “wants the Court to retain any credibility at all,” he must compel the court to “bite the bullet and issue its decision, ....” Then, Tribe explains, “Judge [Tanya S.] Chutkan either can hold whatever hearing the Court thinks necessary to decide exactly which charges against the former president may remain” or can begin the trial itself, which “should have been over by now.” Alito’s ethical self-immolation leaves Roberts no alternative if he wants to dispel the perception that two ethically compromised, partisan justices have thoroughly corrupted the court. (He also should implore Alito to recuse, but who believes that’ll happen?) [emphasis added]

[democracyunderground]

[tiggymalvern]

Oh, and taking lots of bribes and gifts from rich Republicans, doesn't? Did you forget to mention that, Justice Roberts?

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Supreme Court poised to appoint federal judges to run the US economy.

January 18, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JAN 17, 2024

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on two cases that provide the Court with the opportunity to overturn the “Chevron deference doctrine.” Based on comments from the Justices, it seems likely that the justices will overturn judicial precedent that has been settled for forty years. If they do, their decision will reshape the balance of power between the three branches of government by appointing federal judges as regulators of the world’s largest economy, supplanting the expertise of federal agencies (a.k.a. the “administrative state”).

Although the Chevron doctrine seems like an arcane area of the law, it strikes at the heart of the US economy. If the Court were to invalidate the doctrine, it would do so in service of the conservative billionaires who have bought and paid for four of the justices on the Court. The losers would be the American people, who rely on the expertise of federal regulators to protect their water, food, working conditions, financial systems, public markets, transportation, product safety, health care services, and more.

The potential overruling of the Chevron doctrine is a proxy for a broader effort by the reactionary majority to pare the power of the executive branch and Congress while empowering the courts. Let’s take a moment to examine the context of that effort.

But I will not bury the lead (or the lede): The reactionary majority on the Court is out of control. In disregarding precedent that conflicts with the conservative legal agenda of its Federalist Society overlords, the Court is acting in a lawless manner. It is squandering hard-earned legitimacy. It is time to expand the Court—the only solution that requires a simple majority in two chambers of Congress and the signature of the president.

The “administrative state” sounds bad. Is it?

No. The administrative state is good. It refers to the collective body of federal employees, regulators, and experts who help maintain an orderly US economy. Conservatives use the term “administrative state” to denigrate federal regulation and expertise. They want corporations to operate free of all federal restraint—free to pollute, free to defraud, free to impose dangerous and unfair working conditions, free to release dangerous products into the marketplace, and free to engage in deceptive practices in public markets.

The US economy is the largest, most robust economy in the world because federal regulators impose standards for safety, honesty, transparency, and accountability. Not only is the US economy the largest in the world (as measured by nominal GDP), but its GDP per capita ($76,398) overshadows that of the second largest economy, China ($12,270). The US dollar is the reserve currency for the world and its markets are a haven for foreign investment and capital formation. See The Top 25 Economies in the World (investopedia.com)

US consumers, banks, investment firms, and foreign investors are attracted to the US economy because it is regulated. US corporations want all the benefits of regulations—until regulations get in the way of making more money. It is at that point that the “administrative state” is seen as “the enemy” by conservatives who value profit maximization above human health, safety, and solvency.

It is difficult to comprehend how big the US economy is. To paraphrase Douglas Adams’s quote about space, “It’s big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is.” Suffice to say, the US economy is so big it cannot be regulated by several hundred federal judges with dockets filled with criminal cases and major business disputes.

Nor can Congress pass enough legislation to keep pace with ever changing technological and financial developments. Congress can’t pass a budget on time; the notion that it would be able to keep up with regulations necessary to regulate Bitcoin trading in public markets is risible.

What is the Chevron deference doctrine?

Managing the US economy requires hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts—a.k.a. “regulators”—who bring order, transparency, and honesty to the US economy. Those experts must make millions of judgments each year in creating, implementing and applying federal regulations.

And this is where the “Chevron deference doctrine” comes in. When federal experts and regulators interpret federal regulations in esoteric areas such as maintaining healthy fisheries, their decisions should be entitled to a certain amount of deference. And they have received such deference since 1984, when the US Supreme Court created a rule of judicial deference to decisions by federal regulators in the case of Chevron v. NRDC.

What happened at oral argument?

In a pair of cases, the US Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday as to whether the Chevron deference doctrine should continue—or whether the Court should overturn the doctrine and effectively throw out 17,000 federal court decisions applying the doctrine. According to Court observers, including Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, the answer is “Yes, the Court is poised to appoint federal judges as regulators of the US economy.” See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court is seizing more power from Democratic presidents. (slate.com)

I recommend Stern’s article for a description of the grim atmosphere at the oral argument—kind of “pre-demise” wake for the Chevron deference doctrine. Stern does a superb job of explaining the effects of overruling Chevron:

Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.

The Kochs and the Federalist Society have bought and paid for this sad outcome. The chaos that will follow will hurt consumers, travelers, investors, patients and—ultimately—American businesses, who will no longer be able to rely on federal regulators for guidance as to the meaning of federal regulations. Instead, businesses will get an answer to their questions after lengthy, expensive litigation before overworked and ill-prepared judges implement a political agenda.

Expand the Court. Disband the reactionary majority by relegating it to an irrelevant minority. If we win control of both chambers of Congress in 2024 and reelect Joe Biden, expanding the Court should be the first order of business.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[sentimental-apathy]

This is so important. Please reblog this. And please, please, for the love of everything and everyone, PLEASE VOTE!

[geezerwench]

Most of the US Supreme Court is corrupt.

Samuel Alito

Amy Coney Barrett

Neil Gorsuch

Brett Kavanaugh

John Roberts

Clarence Thomas

President Biden is working to change that. He proposed an amendment to the Constitution there is no immunity for presidents for crimes committed while in office. The No One is Above the Law Amendment.

18-year term limits. Bill that has been introduced by Democrats.

Binding Code of Ethics. Bill that has been introduced by Democrats.

Of course, Republicans are opposed to these bills.

[scottguy]

Article: John Roberts’ Secret Trump Memo Revealed in Huge SCOTUS Leak

John Roberts’ Secret Trump Memo Revealed in Huge SCOTUS Leak

There you have it, the CHIEF JUSTICE of the Supreme Court was *eager* to run legal interference for Donald Trump.

He also manipulated the other nine justices in the Colorado 14th amendment disqualification-from-the -ballot case into an unsigned opinion for the appearance of unanimity.

Roberts had previously chosen Alito to write the "Trump cannot do anything wrong as president if it is an 'official act' "ruling. But Alito's brazen unapologetic right-wing upside down flag flying at his home made for bad optics.

It's actually surprising because since when does our now fully corrupt Supreme Court even bother to pretend to care about seeming neutral?

Their decisions are now incompetently reasoned, arbitrary, flouting longstanding precedent (stare decisus) and which are far too overly broad.

Broad rulings are bad and are the opposite of the court's longstanding precedent & protocol for issuing limited scope rulings so as to affect the fewest amount of other important laws inadvertently.

The conservative justices get all huffy and upset when their decisions are questioned in light of all the trips & "gifts" (bribes), the open partisanship, and the above noted flaws in written decisions. They scream that they are legitimate as if they can just will themselves to be so.

It's as if the very FACT of them being appointed to the Supreme Court AUTOMATICALLY washes them forever clean of any suspicion of political bias. They were placed there BECAUSE OF their demonstrated right-wing bias and they know it. They meekly do exactly what they were hand selected to do, which is to thwart regulations and to destroy the wall between church and state.

I can imagine the right-wing six all snickering and smirking in private thinking, "What are you *poor* powerless average Americans going to do about us? Nothing! Money & raw political power anoint us as winners and thus the deciders of all laws no matter how much you want those protections. Power always protects power. So just suck it."

If a law cuts into corporate profit SCOTUS will now find SOME way to say that law is "unconstitutional."

Our entire constitution is designed to prevent too much power in any one branch of government. But the SC is abusing its ideally limited power to hand nearly infinite power to the office of another branch, the presidency.

This is why Republicans block Congress all the time now. They don't want new laws. They're happy to stand back while US Supreme Court nullifies decades of hard-won laws to protect Americans. The corrupt SC does so in favor of capitalist oligarchs and the Catholic religious zealotry they want push on all of us for their own selfish reasons.

The corrupt Supreme Court members need to be impeached, found guilty, and ejected.

Vote blue to make this much more likely.

[protoslacker]

I mean, to be fair, it is in accordance with “originalist” principles. In the sense of “original” meaning “making shit up.”

Comment at Emptywheel. Justice Robert's Drone Strike on George Washington's Legacy

Seems very apt per the article. At Wikpedia on origionalism, Justice William Brennan is quoted describing origionalism as "arrogance cloaked as humility." The court majority seem fake to lots of us, and not entitled to honor.corrupt john robert's court,

Kwame Anthony Appiah wrote a book, The Honor Code. Many of he opinions handed down in this session of the Supreme Court strike me as dishonorable. Here is a short (3 min.) video where Appiah defines honor and shows how honor can make remake society.

[aunti-christ-ine]

[nodynasty4us]

Alito recused himself from deciding whether the Supreme Court should hear a case involving some oil companies. According to new ethics guidelines, he should have explained why he recused, but he did not. In fact he owns stock in one of the companies.

[lenbryant]

A very SCOTUS 4th it was.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Brazil: Supreme Court investigations against Lula shelved

Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) Justice Ricardo Lewandowski ordered the closing of three preliminary investigations in the extinct Lava Jato and Zelotes Operation against President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Agencia Brasil reported.

Lewandowski's decision encompassed investigations concerning donations to the Lula Institute from contractors Odebrecht, the purchase of land for the institute, and alleged irregularities in the purchase of Swedish fighter jets for the Air Force under former President Dilma Rousseff.

The first two inquiries had been suspended since September 2021 by order of the STF. The investigation into alleged influence peddling by Lula in the purchase of the F-39 Gripen fighter jets had been suspended in March of last year.

In his ruling, Lewandowski said that the evidence presented in the lawsuits was illegal and there was therefore no reason for the lawsuits to continue. He classified the evidence as “riddled with irreparable defects and clearly lacking minimum evidential basis.

Continue reading.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[From Robert B. Hubbell’s Newsletter]

Fifth Circuit holds a biased and embarrassing hearing on the mifepristone ruling of Judge Kacsmaryk

         Federal district Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued an order withdrawing the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. A panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling and ordered that the ruling go into effect immediately. The US Supreme Court reversed the 5th Circuit and issued an unusual order that effectively told the 5th Circuit it could not ban the distribution of mifepristone until the Supreme Court ruled on the matter. In other words, the Supreme Court put the 5th Circuit on a “time out” for bad behavior.

         A panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals held oral arguments on the merits of the appeal today. The hearing was an embarrassment. The judges acted like petulant children who were upset that they had been reprimanded. Worse, they made no pretense of maintaining impartiality or objectivity—or adherence to the rule of law. The obscene display of judges following personal religious convictions rather than the Constitution is explained by Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The 5th Circuit is furious that the Supreme Court put it in mifepristone timeout.

         I highly recommend reading Stern’s article in full to get the full flavor of the hearing. Stern is at his best in this article. He writes, in part:

And here’s the punchline: Nothing these intellectual Lilliputians do will even matter. The Supreme Court has already decided that the 5th Circuit cannot be trusted with this case: In April, it froze the court’s previous decision stringently limiting access to mifepristone, expressly maintaining the freeze until the justices themselves take further action. Elrod, Ho, and Wilson are howling into the wind; they have no power to change a thing about federal regulation of medication abortion. The adults in the room have already put them in time-out. And rather than demonstrate that they can judge responsibly, they seized on Wednesday’s hearing to throw a combination temper tantrum/gaslight party. No lessons have been learned, no maturity acquired. This time-out probably isn’t ending anytime soon.

Ho read aloud random people’s criticisms of the FDA and made Ellsworth respond to them, then declared that federal courts should override the FDA’s scientific determinations because the agency isn’t trustworthy.

These are not serious people. This is not how real judges conduct themselves. This was barely a judicial proceeding. It was a struggle session in which three anti-abortion zealots yelled at attorneys who have already prevailed in this case once at the Supreme Court. Their rage should have been aimed at SCOTUS, but it’s not a good look for lower courts to trash-talk their superiors, so they redirected it to Harrington and Ellsworth instead. (Erin Hawley, wife of Sen. Josh Hawley, argued against mifepristone; the less said about her unceasing stream of shameless falsehoods, the better.)

         I also recommend Talking Points Memo, Right-Wing Judges Mulling Restricting Abortion Drug: Isn’t The Real Problem Here How Mean You All Were To Kacsmaryk?

         If we had a functioning Supreme Court that cared about the rule of law, it would castigate the 5th Circuit panel for its shameful display of bias, animus, and religious zeal.

         But, as Stern notes, the 5th Circuit cannot restrict the distribution of mifepristone. And the failure of the 5th Circuit to address serious legal questions—like the absence of standing by the plaintiff doctors—may doom the 5th Circuit’s opinion to a chilly reception in the Supreme Court. We can only hope.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]