#judicial conference

[saywhat-politics]

Jan. 2, 2025, 7:21 PM MST / Updated Jan. 2, 2025, 7:53 PM MST

By Zoë Richards

A judicial organization that sets national policy for federal courts has rejected a request from two Democratic lawmakers to refer Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Justice Department over free travel and gifts from wealthy benefactors that were largely omitted from his financial disclosure forms.

The group, the Judicial Conference, sent identical letters Thursday to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who chairs the Judiciary subcommittee on federal courts, and Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., the ranking member of the Judiciary subcommittee on courts, who asked it in 2023 to refer Thomas to the attorney general for investigation following a ProPublica report on free travel and gifts to Thomas by billionaire Harlan Crow and others.

Judicial Conference Secretary Robert J. Conrad Jr. said Thomas had filed amended financial disclosures "that address several issues identified in your letter" and argued that there is legal uncertainty over whether the Judicial Conference has the authority to refer complaints about Supreme Court justices.

[genocidepreventionday]

Panel discussion: Memorialization of genocide: Justice, truth, healing - Case study Srebrenica.

This panel discussion (with Bosnian-English interpretation) aims to delve into the multifaceted dimensions and importance of memorializing genocide, with a particular focus on the Srebrenica genocide, not least in light of the proposed draft resolution on designating 11 July as International Day of Reflection and Commemoration of the 1995 Genocide in Srebrenica.

The war that followed the breakup of the former Yugoslavia claimed more than 100,000 lives in Bosnia and Herzegovina between 1992 and 1995, mostly of Bosnian Muslims, and displaced more than two million others. The list of atrocities committed during that time is overwhelming, but Srebrenica, without a doubt, became its darkest chapter. Previously declared as the UN "safe area," 8,372 women, men, and children were systematically executed in July 1995 in and around the town of Srebrenica, the largest atrocity on European soil since the Second World War, adjudicated as genocide by international courts. It stands as a harrowing reminder of the consequences of unchecked ethnic hatred and political failure.

Remembering is a basic human instinct, and memory cannot be imprisoned—it will usually come out in one form or another. The challenge is to find ways to harness memory to learn lessons from the past to avoid repeating it.

Memorialization is a process that satisfies the desire to honor those who suffered or died during the conflict, to examine the past, and to address contemporary issues. The memorialization of genocide rests at the complex intersection of justice, truth, and healing for affected communities and the global collective conscience. It can either promote social recovery after violent conflict ends or crystallize a sense of victimization, injustice, discrimination, and the desire for revenge. It is important to be firmly based on judicial determination, as memorialization can also be shaped by those in power in a highly political process.

Concept note

Watch the Panel discussion: Memorialization of genocide: Justice, truth, healing - Case study Srebrenica

[whatstheusgovernmentdoing]

11/15/24 - Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is having a close-doors conference today to potentially vote on the cases heard earlier this week. Will update on it tomorrow

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Keith Edwards at No Lies Detected:

Fascism doesn’t come for every generation, but it has come for ours.  This is not a fight on the beaches of Normandy, but in our own country. This article begins a series on what opposing Donald Trump and his movement can look like. I hope you will join me as these progress.

[...]

Do not leave. Faced with the might of the United States government aligned against you, you might consider resigning preemptively to avoid the humiliation of inevitable termination. This is counterproductive for at least two reasons: If you leave, you save Trump Administration officials the time and effort of identifying you, which otherwise could have taken months or years. Second, your principled stand would likely only result in your replacement by an unprincipled Trump loyalist. By staying on, you may find yourself helping to implement policies you find hateful, but by refusing to leave, you can ensure that you have some influence on those policies, because then you can...

Delay. Delay. Delay. Waiting out the enemy until he moves on, gives up, or forgets is a time-honored strategy not just among civil servants but also history’s best generals. That email about a proposed rule change to healthcare protections? Bury it in everyone’s inbox by sending it late. A meeting on reviewing the U.S. government’s foreign aid commitments to a region you oversee? Oops, you’ll be out that day! That agency conference your political-appointee boss requested you arrange? Next month didn’t fit everyone’s schedule, so you had to push it to after the new year! Slow-walking is the classic tool in any bureaucrat’s toolbox, and in the next Trump Administration, you can use it in defense of the Constitution.

Be intentionally incompetent. As a career employee, you likely have always had the advantage of knowing your workplace better than your politically appointed overlords. This is perhaps your most potent weapon against Trump. Draft rules unlikely to survive judicial review. Favor lengthy rulemaking or review processes over expedited ones. Complete tasks sequentially rather than in parallel to draw out timelines. Add complexity, stakeholders, and process wherever possible. In short, exploit the knowledge gap you hold over your bosses to diminish, defuse, and defeat their plans.

Leak. Federal employees have the right to report what they believe to be illegal or abusive of authority to their agency’s inspector general (IG) without fear of retaliation. Trump however has singled out IGs for replacement after one played a pivotal role in his first impeachment, so the availability of this option may depend on how politically prominent your agency is. Fortunately, you can anonymously tip prominent news outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post, which boast extensive investigative units and employ rigorous safeguards to protect sources’ identities. You can also seek out sympathetic elected officials, such as Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee, whose main function is investigation of the federal government. (If you choose disclosure, be sure that the information is not classified, the unauthorized disclosure of which carries stiff federal penalties.)

Disregard and refuse. When you have exhausted all other options, you may want selectively to resort to riskier behaviors. These include going behind political appointees’ backs to subvert their activities, say by picking up the phone and countermanding their directions. In extreme cases, you may have outright to refuse direct orders to the appointee’s face. Though such actions seem like a fasttrack to termination, you may still be protected by the fact that overwhelmed political appointees might hesitate to go through the onerous process of finding a politically reliable replacement. Remember, the longer you stay in, the harder you make it for Trump to do what he wants. Know your rights. If the worst happens and your agency moves to terminate you, you can still fight back. There are multiple avenues an employee designated for dismissal can pursue to delay, reduce, or reverse agency penalties against them.1 The beauty of these options is that they can take months or even years to resolve and may be appealed to higher bodies, further extending the process. All the while, you are collecting a salary and occupying a full-time equivalent (FTE) position that your agency can’t fill until you finally depart. (This is not legal advice. If you find yourself in this situation, please seek a lawyer.)

Keith Edwards writes in his No Lies Detected Substack on how civil servants can show resistance to the tyrannical Trump 2.0 Regime from within.

[mariacallous]

The U.S. Senate voted 52-41 on Tuesday to confirm Mary Kay Costello as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, thereby setting a record for the number of LGBTQ federal judicial appointments made under the Biden-Harris administration, 12.

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights says less than three percent of the country’s nearly 900 federal judges are LGBTQ. Until this week, the Obama-Biden administration had appointed the most, 11, over two terms.

Costello is a prosecutor who has served as assistant U.S. attorney in Philadelphia since 2008.

In a post on X, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee’s Democratic majority wrote that she “exhibits a breadth of experience and a strong dedication to public service” and is “ready to serve as a federal judge.”

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (Ill.), the Democratic majority whip and chair of the committee, shared another post on X celebrating the administration’s record-breaking number of LGBTQ judicial appointments, writing, “We’re diversifying the federal judiciary for generations to come.”

[waitmyturtles]

This is INCREDIBLY EXCITING news, as South Korea lags behind many other Asian countries on public viewpoints about LGBTQ+ rights. Well done, South Korea’s Supreme Court, on equal public healthcare rights! Also note, at the end of the article, how fast attitudes are changing about same-sex marriage in South Korea over the last 24 years. Keep the upward trend going! (I’m calling for more South Korean BLs, obviously.)

Paywall-free paste below:

In a landmark ruling for gay rights in South Korea on Thursday, the country’s Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples qualify for the national health insurance’s dependent coverage, a decision that rights activists hoped could pave the way for legalizing same-sex marriage in the country.

The decision would allow same-sex couples in the country to register their partners as dependents in national health insurance coverage, as married couples or couples in a common-law marriage can. Numerous other benefits are denied to same-sex and other couples living outside the traditional norms of family in South Korea.

In its ruling on Thursday, the country’s highest court ruled that denying a same-sex couple national health insurance dependent coverage “just because they are of the same sex” constitutes a serious discrimination that infringed upon citizens’ “dignity and values, their rights to pursue happiness, their freedom of privacy and their rights to be equally treated by the law.”

The plaintiff, So Seong-wook, filed the legal complaint in 2021. Mr. So wanted to register in the national health insurance program as a dependent of his partner, Kim Yong-min, arguing that their union should be treated as a common-law marriage. But South Korea’s health insurance service rejected his request and told him to pay a separate monthly insurance premium — a decision later affirmed by a district court.

But in February last year, an appeals court overturned the lower-court ruling. It said that although Mr. Kim and Mr. So’s union could not be considered a common-law marriage under South Korean laws, they should still qualify for the national health insurance’s dependent coverage.

In its final say on the case on Thursday, the Supreme Court endorsed the appeals court ruling. It said that same-sex couples formed an “economic cohabitation tantamount to” married and common-law couples.

“I hope today’s ruling will serve as a steppingstone toward enabling sexual minorities to gain equality in the system of marriage,” Mr. So said in a news conference on Thursday.

Mr. Kim said while he describes himself as Mr. So’s “husband” and “companion,” he has never been able to enjoy those titles legally in South Korea.

“I am so happy that the court recognized some of that today,” he said.

Borang Jang, an East Asia researcher at Amnesty International, the rights group, described the ruling as historic.

“The court has taken a significant step towards dismantling systemic discrimination and ensuring inclusivity for all,” she said in a statement. “The case itself is a sobering reminder of the lengthy judicial processes that same-sex couples must endure to secure basic rights that should be universally guaranteed.”

There is no official data on how many people live together in same-sex unions in the country. But between 2016 and 2022, the number of people who live together in “non-kin households” — people living together outside legal marriage — doubled to 1 million, according to government data.

Conservative Christians in South Korea have long campaigned against legalizing same-sex marriage or introducing an anti-discrimination law that protects people of any gender, age, sexual identity or physical ability. But attitudes are changing. At the turn of the century, only 17 percent of South Koreans were in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage, according to Gallup Korea, a survey company. By May of last year, that figure had grown to 40 percent.

By Choe Sang-Hun

[littlesparklight]

The way that, when it comes to the Judgement itself, what the ancient Greek writers were saying Paris did wrong isn't that he chose the objectively wrong goddess. For the first, it's of course that he was bribed (let's ignore that he did not ask for anything and each goddess on their own offers a gift; choosing a goddess then becomes choosing a bribe/gift).

For the second; there is in fact a couple sources that, in arguing that the very idea of the Judgement is silly, basically points out that the other two goddesses wouldn't have competed with Aphrodite in beauty [because they wouldn't care/she is the objectively correct winner in such a contest].

It's not even that he chooses wrong because another option would definitely not lead to Troy destroyed and so many people dead.

(Which it would. Hera's gift assures the destruction of Troy's royal house, at the least, and Athena's with war... well. People die in war. Cities get attacked and sacked in war. Why would Troy be spared?)

It's that Paris chooses the unmanly option.

As a man, he shouldn't prioritize a relationship/marriage, and certainly not sex; that shows a lack of (manly) self-control over his body and urges. As a man, he should want/should be dedicating himself either to war or kingship, among the gifts/bribes the goddesses offer. As a man, it doesn't matter that not choosing Aphrodite c/would be objectively wrong; by what they offer only either Athena or Hera are the "right" options in the view of Ancient Greek social mores.

The goddesses' individual beauty does not matter in terms of "correctness" of Paris' choice.

That Troy (and others) are equally doomed no matter which goddess chosen doesn't matter in terms of "correctness" of Paris' choice.

The only thing that matters (again, aside from complaints of judicial corruption when the judge also cannot refuse the gifts involved), is that Paris confers the prize to the goddess offering him the unmanly gift/life option/what have you.

Like Blondell phrases it, Paris' affirms who/what he already is (effeminate) by choosing who he will henceforth be (sex/love-oriented, that is, effeminate) though awarding Aphrodite the apple.

[a-d-nox]

lenormand cards: key phrases and an example of a card combo (part 2)

this is just a beginners guide to the lenormand. these are key phrases that come to mind when i think of the cards - NOT how they should be directly applied. they needs to be thought about situationally - the card / when it is in specific combos can change or alter its meaning in a reading.

child: innocence, nativity, spontaneity, seeing only the good in people, carefree attitude, an actually child, smallness, newness, beginnings, playing, immaturity, etc.

child + heart = young love, blind devotion, puberty, just happy to be around others, small joys in life, parallel play, nostalgia, an olive branch, etc.

fox: plotting, protection, security, stealth, deviousness, treachery, manipulation, deception, trickery, loyalty, work, routine, obligation, responsibility, duty, cons, etc.

fox + child = white lies, feigning ignorance/innocence, impulsive actions based on opportunity, pretending to be better than you are, avoiding responsibilities, etc.

bear: defensive, fierceness, resourcefulness, power, strength, courage, protection, maturity/matriarchy, stability, security, management, finances, investments, income, possessions, diet, food, etc.

bear + fox = protective yourself, a fierce loyalty, seven of swords energy, white collar crime, savings account, etc.

stars: peacefulness, tranquility, guidance, direction, happiness, hope, encouragement, perseverance, confidence, etc.

stars + bear = protecting your peace, the power of ones mindset, seeing a way out of the red / debt, etc.

stork: esteem, admiration, respect, babies, fertility, fruitfulness, productivity, birth, renewal, change, movement, new job, new home, new person in your life, extra money, improvements, pregnancy, adoption, new activity, new projects, progress, advancement, renovations, evolution, etc.

stork + stars = good self-esteem, becoming pregnant soon, encouragement from the universe to get a new job, don't lose hope in a project/task, etc.

dog: best friend, companionship, protection, loyalty, fidelity, guidance, sincerity, partnership, acquaintanceship, therapist, boyfriend/girlfriend, an affair, advisor, doctor, reliability, etc.

dog + stork = your best friend is pregnant, meeting a new friend, renewal of vows, a reliable new source of income, real estate agent, taking things to the next level in a relationship, etc.

tower: shelter, protection, confinement, imprisonment, government, corporation, judicial system, military, guarding, ego, ambition, isolation, guidance, schools, law, hospitals, high self-esteem, condos, movie theaters, office building, mall, airports, chain businesses, legal matters, bureaucracy, etc.

tower + dog = a sheltered friend, a friend you protect, roommate, an egotistical friend, water cooler encounters at the workplace, needing to visit the doctor for testing, etc.

garden: courting, public gatherings, harmony, beauty, relaxation, birthday parties, concert, play, movies, restaurants, public/private occasions, reunions, conferences, seminars, meetings, crowds, audiences, celebrations, abundance, etc.

garden + tower = little to no dating experience, solitude, hotel stay, movie theater, cafeteria, airport reunions, a convention, etc. 

mountain: immobility, resistance, standing still, endurance, blockage, obstacles, what must be overcame, challenges, delays, interruptions, burdens, postponement, procrastination, remoteness, faraway retreats, etc.

mountain + garden = stage fright, an enduring relationship, social anxiety, social burden, secrets, a rain date for an event, etc.

crossroads: options, choices, free will, multiple directions, doubts, hesitation, double lives, cheating, etc.

crossroads + mountain = analysis paralysis, the many ways to overcome an obstacle, challenges within a relationship ("where do we go from here"), etc.

mice: sickness, fast, smart, group work, damage, reproduction, stress, worry, restlessness, agitation, palpitations, anxiety, nervousness, apprehension, tension, fatigue, lost items, small problems, tediousness, repetitiveness, excitement, eagerness, agitation, etc.

mice + crossroads = options of treatment, anxiety, paranoia, worrying about doing the wrong thing or picking the wrong choice, decision fatigue, etc.

heart: love, passion, devotion, affection, emotions, connections with others, appreciation of others, happiness, joy, contentment, satisfaction, fulfillment, gratification, peace, harmony, delight, pleasure, enjoyment, kindness, charity, generosity, hospitality, feelings, desires, fondness, intentions, fidelity, etc.

heart + mice = heart break, a wave of emotions, instant gratification, manifesting, etc.

like what you read? leave a tip and state what post it is for! please use my "suggest a post topic" button if you want to see a specific pac/pile next. if you'd like my input on how i read a specific card or what i like to ask my deck, lenormand combos centered on specific card, etc. feel free to use the ask button for that as well.

click here for the masterlist

click here for more lenormard related posts

want a personal reading? click here to check out my reading options and prices

© a-d-nox 2024 all rights reserved

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

The Venezuelan Supreme Court (TSJ) has concluded its review of the July 28 presidential elections in the Caribbean country.

On Thursday, Venezuela’s maximum judicial authority ratified President Nicolás Maduro’s victory to secure a third term that will run from January 10, 2025, to January 10, 2031.

In a press conference with state officials, diplomatic representatives and reporters, TSJ President Caryslia Rodríguez began by reaffirming the court’s jurisdiction and recalling recent electoral processes in Brazil, Mexico and the United States that were ultimately settled by judicial rulings. The magistrate then proceeded to read the verdict.

“We certify in an unobjectionable way that the examined electoral evidence confirms the results proclaimed by the National Electoral Council (CNE) which saw Nicolás Maduro reelected as president,” she said.

The CNE declared Maduro the winner with 52 percent of the vote, compared to 43 percent for US-backed opposition candidate Edmundo González.

Rodríguez stated that a team of national and international experts had conducted a review “with the highest technical standards” of the voting records submitted by electoral parties and candidates and found them to “fully coincide” with data from the CNE’s tallying centers.

[andiatas]

Crown Prince Haakon: - I [only] know what Marius has told us

Foto: Silje Katrine Robinson / NTB

- It is a serious matter, and we are concerned that everyone involved gets good help and support, that they have good people around them, says the Crown Prince.

- This case is now in the judicial system, which the police are handling. That way, all parties are heard, which is good. And I have great confidence that they do it in an orderly, professional, and fair way in both the police and the judicial system.

When asked whether the police have been in contact with the Crown Prince Couple in connection with this case, the Crown Prince replies:

- Not directly. But I ask for your understanding that we cannot say much about the matter. If you have any questions about the case, I will probably have to pass [you] on to the lawyer.

Crown Prince Haakon is in Stavanger to open the oil and energy fair conference ONS (Offshore Northern Seas).

[...]

- Did the charge and the arrest come as a surprise to the Crown Prince Couple?

- I cannot say anything directly about the matter. I ask for your understanding that it is better for the lawyer to answer all questions about the case, says Crown Prince Haakon.

[...]

- Can the Crown Prince say something about what the Crown Prince Couple have known and done to handle the situation?

- We are very close [to the situation]. So we have known what Marius has told us and have known about some of these complex problems, but I do not want to go into the details of that, says Crown Prince Haakon.

It has been known since before that Crown Princess Mette-Marit has had contact with the woman to whom Høiby has admitted physical abuse. The Crown Prince will not go into detail about this contact.

- We have confirmed that contact has taken place, but I do not want to go into detail on that further, he says.

[...]

- Did the Crown Prince know about the accusations from the two exes?

- All questions about the case, I ask for your understanding that we cannot go into it. You must take that with the lawyer, says the Crown Prince.

The Crown Prince confirms that Marius Borg Høiby has a diplomatic passport.

- Since he was little, he has had both an ordinary passport and a diplomatic passport.

Communications manager Guri Varpe at Slottet explains why Høiby has a diplomatic passport.

- Royals have diplomatic passports, and Marius Borg Høiby, therefore, has a diplomatic passport to use when he travels with the rest of the family, says Varpe to NRK.

[...]

Marius Borg Høiby is not a member of the Royal House, but he is part of the Royal Family.

In three days, Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett's wedding celebration will begin.

[...]

It has caused strong reactions that the princess, who is number four in the line of succession to the Norwegian throne, has sold the rights to the wedding to the British celebrity magazine Hello Magazine.

According to what NRK is informed, the TV rights are linked to Netflix.

All other media are excluded from the wedding and [wedding] parties.

- What does the Crown Prince think that the rights have been sold?

- I think that now it is a wedding, and we are looking forward to that. At the same time, we have an agreement which we, of course, assume will be followed, and then there is a time [later on] for us to talk about it further, says the Crown Prince.

[...]

- Have Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett stuck to that agreement when they have now entered into an exclusive agreement with Hello?

- Now it's the wedding first, and we're looking forward to that. Now we will go through with that. It will be nice. And then later there is time to talk further about the agreement, and how we handle it, the Crown Prince replies.

[...]

A recent poll conducted by Norstat for NRK shows that nearly four out of ten Norwegians have a more negative view of the monarchy.

Most of them justify it with Princess Märtha Louise, Durek Verrett and/or Marius Borg Høiby.

- It is obvious that such matters have an impact on how people think. At the same time, the monarchy debate is something we follow, but I think it is better that it is up to others to comment, says Crown Prince Haakon.

Excerpts from an article by Vilde Helljesen and Kristi Marie Skrede for NRK, published on Aug. 26, 2024, at 10:24 and updated the same day at 18:29. The text is translated and edited for clarity by me.

Note from Saga: I've mentioned this before but should probably repeat it. The Scandinavian royals differentiate between the Royal House (Kungahuset/Kongehuset) and the Royal Family (Kungafamiljen/Kongefamilien).

The Royal House can be compared to "working royals" amongst the British royals, meaning those who do royal work, receive apanage and represent the monarchy in some form or capacity. The Royal Family is strictly family members, and they may carry titles such as Prince or Princess (such as Princess Christina of Sweden or Prince Sverre Magnus of Norway), but they don't have to (such as Chris O'Neill or Marius), and they don't carry out any type of work.

This is why, when following the British royals, you're much more likely to see the term "the Royal Family", while if you follow, for example, the Swedish or Norwegian royals, you're much more likely to see the term "the Royal House".

[tanadrin]

Five to Four is doing a series on the Federalist Society, which is very interesting--they're probably one of the most successful political movements in modern America, and the heart of the conservative legal movement. Why they have been so successful in shaping the judiciary, and taking ideas which were once part of the legal lunatic fringe and moving them to the mainstream, isn't particularly mysterious either. In the 1980s, within the legal profession conservative thought was very unpopular; in the legal sphere, liberals had achieved a lot of big policy victories, and were able to articulate a strong positive vision of the law and of policy, while conservatives in the same sphere were mostly left writing amicus briefs that said "nuh-uh" and bickering between their pro-business and libertarian factions.

The founders of the Federalist Society wanted to bring together conservative law students and lawyers, and articulate a positive, intellectual vision of conservative law. But more than that, they wanted that vision to have a material effect, and to win over people to their cause. This meant holding conferences to spread their ideas, networking and creating professional opportunities, especially under conservative judges and administrations, getting some big-name figures (like Scalia and Bork, both before their respective Supreme Court nominations) to back them, setting aside the differences of various factions within the nascent conservative legal movement so they wouldn't waste time on infighting, and, of course, no small amount of patience.

The results speak for themselves. Although the legal profession in the U.S. is still as a whole probably pretty liberal, Republican administrations are in charge about half the time, and the Federalist Society can furnish them with lists of candidates for judicial positions at every level from the lowest to the highest court. The demand for clerks under these judges and conservative legal bureaucrats under Republican Presidents means (so I gather) that there's a pretty robust pipeline from Federalist Society law student at a good law school to a promising career in government. And as a result of steady work over decades, dreams which were very distant in the 1980s, like overturning Roe or weakening the Voting Rights Act, have now been accomplished. Sure, people all over the country hate many of these decisions; but that's politics, babey!

And you don't need a theory of nebulous "elites" or difficult-to-discern incentives to understand the shifts in the judiciary since the 1980s, even for the most unpopular decisions. It's perfectly clear--it's the Federalist Society! And the Federalist Society succeeded because when they felt themselves a sidelined minor faction in law schools and in legal circles, they didn't collapse into despair. They got organized, they identified places they could exert influence, and they figured out how to make that a reality. It's a good lesson in politics.

[whatstheusgovernmentdoing]

11/8/24 - Supreme Court

Today is a conference day for the Supreme Court, where cases argued earlier this week (before this blog started) are discussed and voted on. It seems pretty tight-lipped, so we probably won't know what's going on behind the closed doors until tomorrow

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan Nicholson at HuffPost:

Donald Trump’s “guilty” verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records in his hush money trial could make it harder for the Senate to get much work done in the next few months — at least, if a group of pro-Trump senators has their way. Eight Republican senators said Friday they would try to slow down the Senate’s business in response to the verdict. Unlike the House, the Senate runs its day-to-day business under small, temporary agreements between the majority Democrats and minority Republicans. It’s a system that can be undermined sometimes by even one obstinate senator.

“The White House has made a mockery of the rule of law and fundamentally altered our politics in un-American ways. As a Senate Republican conference we are unwilling to aid and abet this White House in its project to tear this country apart,” said the eight senators in a letter. Signatories included Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). Specifically, the group promised three things: to not allow any increase in “non-security” funding or spending bills that fund “partisan lawfare”; to not vote for any of the White House’s political or judicial nominees; and to not allow faster consideration of Democratic legislative priorities “not directly relevant to the safety of the American people.”

“Those who turned our judicial system into a political cudgel must be held accountable,” Lee said in a social media post about the letter. “We are no longer cooperating with any Democrat legislative priorities or nominations, and we invite all concerned Senators to join our stand.”

8 felon-coddling Republican Senators signed a letter that they’ll muck up even more business in the Senate in protest of the guilty verdict handed down by a jury in the Trump business records falsification trial.

The 8 signatories are: Mike Lee, J.D. Vance, Tommy Tuberville, Eric Schmitt, Marsha Blackburn, Rick Scott, Roger Marshall, and Marco Rubio.

Surprisingly, Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Tom Cotton didn’t sign on to it.

[mariacallous]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal courts will not refer allegations that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas may have violated ethics laws to the Justice Department, the judiciary’s policymaking body said Thursday.

Thomas has agreed to follow updated requirements on reporting trips and gifts, including clearer guidelines on hospitality from friends, the U.S. Judicial Conference wrote to Democratic senators who had called for an investigation into undisclosed acceptance of luxury trips.

Thomas has previously said he wasn’t required to disclose the many trips he and his wife took that were paid for by wealthy benefactors like Republican megadonor Harlan Crow because they are close personal friends. The court didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

The Supreme Court adopted its first code of ethics in 2023 in the face of sustained criticism, though the new code still lacks a means of enforcement.

It’s unclear whether the law allows the U.S. Judicial Conference to make a criminal referral regarding a Supreme Court justice, U.S. District Judge Robert Conrad wrote. He serves as secretary for the conference, which sets policy for the federal court system and is led by Chief Justice John Roberts.

A referral in this case isn’t necessary, Conrad said, because two Democratic senators called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel over the summer. No such appointment has been publicly made.

The group Fix the Court said the financial disclosure law is clear and should apply to justices. “The Conference’s letters further underscore the need for Congress to create a new and transparent mechanism to investigate the justices for ethics violations since the Conference is unwilling to act upon the one method we had presumed existed to do that,” Executive Director Gabe Roth said in a statement.

Conrad also sent a similar response to a separate complaint from a conservative legal group, the Center for Renewing America, in regard to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s reports on the source of her husband’s consulting income. Jackson has since amended her disclosures and also agreed to updated reporting requirements, Conrad wrote.

[news4dzhozhar]

Boston Marathon bombing victims rip Tsarnaev’s latest legal appeal

**So due process and the right to appeal is a "cash cow" now? This whole attitude is why some of the appeals are being filed in the first place. There SHOULD have been a change of venue, Judge O’Toole SHOULD 100% be removed, 2 of the jurors lied in their pretrial screenings so the penalty phase SHOULD be retried. **

BOSTON — Boston Marathon bombing victims say Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attempt to get his old legal team back together is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Tsarnaev, locked up in a Colorado Supermax, has an Aug. 21 court date in Boston where his lawyers will begin to try to keep him out of the electric chair.

That status conference is before federal Judge George A. O’Toole Jr.

“Who’s paying for this?” said Liz Norden. “He blew up innocent people and we’re told it’s no one’s business to know how much his lawyers cost? It makes no sense.”

The Department of Justice has denied a Herald public records request for Tsarnaev’s legal bill while his case drags on in the courts.

Norden has attempted to make every hearing in a solemn show of support for the victims of the bombing, including her two boys who lost their right legs that terrible day on Boylston Street on April 15, 2013.

Marc Fucarile, woke up in a hospital with his right leg mostly gone and his left one possibly next, said Monday the seemingly never-ending case against the bomber is an insult to the city.

“Stop wasting taxpayers’ dollars just for greedy lawyers,” he said of Tsarnaev’s appeal of his death penalty sentence. “He was already judged by his peers. There should be no question he deserves the death penalty.

“Let’s just cut off this cash cow,” he added.

The bomber has questioned the bias of two jurors in his 2015 death penalty trial and won a partial victory in the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

The appeals court stated “the district court’s investigation fell short of what was constitutionally required” over this one issue. If bias is shown, the court adds, Tsarnaev will be “entitled to a new penalty-phase proceeding.”

The alleged bias is over social media postings about the bombing made by two jurors.

The appeals court has added “regardless of the outcome, (Tsarnaev) will spend the rest of his life in prison.”

Now the bomber is moving quickly to assemble his legal team, with Boston attorney William Fick filing an appeal to return to the case now that he is in private practice.

Tsarnaev is “legally indigent,” Fick writes, and the courts should allow him back on the case “in order to serve the interests of justice, judicial economy, continuity in representation.”

His motion also states attorneys Daniel Habib, Deirdre von Dornum, and Mia Eisner-Grynberg from the Federal Defenders of New York, are on his side of the bench. It’s not clear if all the lawyers are working pro bono or submitting a bill.

The New York group does offer free help to “persons charged with federal crimes who cannot afford to hire an attorney.”

The case remains in the Seaport federal court before the same judge as the alleged bias of two jurors is re-examined, the court announced Monday. Still, Tsarnaev does have a chance to avoid death.

The bombing killed Martin Richard, 8; Krystle Campbell, 29; and Lu Lingzi, 23. More than 260 people were injured and maimed. MIT Police Officer Sean Collier, 27, was shot execution-style days later by Tsarnaev and his brother Tamerlan, killed hours later in a firefight in Watertown.

Boston Police Officer Dennis Simmonds, 28, injured in the Watertown shootout, died in April 2014.

Tsarnaev is locked up in the Federal Correctional Complex Florence in Colorado — a Supermax called the “Alcatraz of the Rockies.”