#rep. jamie raskin

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Raskin argues DOJ can force recusals of Alito, Thomas in Jan. 6 cases | The Hill

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD.) argued that the Department of Justice could force the recusals of Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in cases the court is facing related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

“Everyone assumes that nothing can be done about the recusal situation because the highest court in the land has the lowest ethical standards — no binding ethics code or process outside of personal reflection,” the Maryland Democrat said in an opinion piece in The New York Times published Wednesday. “Each justice decides for him- or herself whether he or she can be impartial.”

Raskin then noted that Alito and Thomas “could choose to recuse themselves,” but that “begging them to do the right thing misses a far more effective course of action.”

“The U.S. Department of Justice — including the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, an appointed U.S. special counsel and the solicitor general, all of whom were involved in different ways in the criminal prosecutions underlying these cases and are opposing Mr. Trump’s constitutional and statutory claims — can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law,” Raskin continued.

Alito and Thomas have faced recent calls to recuse themselves from cases related to the Jan. 6 attack due to controversies over flags reportedly flown at Alito’s houses linked to the “Stop the Steal” effort, and Thomas’s wife’s reported involvement in that same effort.

“The Justice Department and Attorney General Merrick Garland can invoke two powerful textual authorities for this motion: the Constitution of the United States, specifically the due process clause, and the federal statute mandating judicial disqualification for questionable impartiality, 28 U.S.C. Section 455,” Raskin said.

The Justice Department declined to comment.

The Hill has reached out to the Supreme Court.

[dontmean2bepoliticalbut]

[carolinemillerbooks]

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/the-system-is-rigged/

The System Is Rigged

It’s old news that a New York jury found former president Donald Trump guilty of 34 felony counts for falsifying business records before the 2016 presidential election.  He protested that the trial was rigged, naturally.  What else can a guilty man running for the White House a second time say?   His followers need none of his excuses. They are pledged to believe his version of events. A few will admit Trump is a flawed vessel.  They give him their blessing because they are  White Christian Nationalists  who believe he is doing God’s work. The country isn’t leaning in their direction,  however. The alliance between would-be saints and an uber-sinner might be laughable if they weren’t abetted by powerful allies. The names of some of these allies appear in the  April/May edition of Forbes magazine.  Not White Christian Nationalists, they are members of the billionaire club that controls how money flows around the globe. Liquidity allows them to cast long shadows in both local and international affairs and maintain …heavily directorial systems  [that] are fundamentally rigged to the benefit of those at the very top. What they share with White Christian Nationalists is an antipathy to democracy and the notion of one man one vote.  Driven by blind ambitions, these money changers fail to see how much their wealth derives from the governmental structures they seek to undermine.  Where would Elan Musk be without federal subsidies?   And thanks to the holes they have poked in our tax laws many of them, like Trump, can boast that they’ve never paid their fair share.  Not one of them has given  94% of their income to the public good since dinosaurs roamed the steamy forests of the Saraha.  Freed of their social obligations, these entrepreneurs invest their money in schemes to influence international monetary agencies designed to regulate them.  The  Investor-State Dispute Settlement System (ISDS) is an example. One reporter alleges the organization is so degraded that multinational corporations run off with billions of taxpayer dollars. (Victories in the Global Movement Against Corporate Globalization,” by Melanie Foley, Public Citizen, May/June, pg. 10)  Look what happened in Togo.  This small nation introduced legislation to regulate cigarette content in the hope of protecting the health of its citizens. The dream died when the ISDS allowed manufacturers to sue. Knowing these multinationals had coffers many times larger than its national budget, Togo backed down.  A Boston University report on the ISDS also documents the agency’s leniency toward the fossil fuel industry. One of its regulations allows that enterprise to sue based on a claim that cutting carbon emissions harms its financial interests. How rigged is that?  Rather than fight these multinationals directly, the Union of Concerned Scientists has proposed reforms to strengthen the ballot box.  (“Strengthening Our Elections—And Our Democracy,” by Seth Schulman, Catalyst, Spring 2024, pgs. 16-17)  They point out that even the modest reform of well-designed ballots can affect the outcome of elections.  In addition, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md) wants to protect our democracy by starting at the top.  He proposes to force Supreme Court judges to recuse themselves if they have apparent conflicts of interest.  His suggestion may have come too late.  The High Court dealt democracy a crippling blow in Citizen’s United.  By a  5-4 decision, it extended First Amendment rights from individuals to institutions. Since then, money has poured into our political campaigns, providing large corporations with megaphones to silence the voices of the people. You bet, Mr. Trump!  The system IS rigged. The wonder is that twelve ordinary citizens who were approved by your attorneys could arrive at a verdict and find you guilty of 34 felony counts. That unanimity makes your rage and the cries of your lackeys who call you a martyr unconvincing. What a majority of us hear is “Send in the Clowns” I do have one regret about the verdict, though, Mr.  President. Neither of you nor I will live long enough to see what history will make of your legacy.

[msclaritea]

Why I don't fall for the fact that news outlets always have political guests, like Jamie Raskin, from extreme ends of the spectrum, instead of more moderate or center/left guests, why he's always set up to score points in televised meetings and why Progressives always push him. I know what they want. Rep Raskin already took a swipe at VP Harris. I know.

[sarkos]

Trump’s loyal surrogates have duly embraced the project — perhaps no one more zealously than Ivan Raiklin, a retired Army Reserve lieutenant colonel and former U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency employee, who bills himself as the former and would-be president’s “future secretary of retribution.” Raiklin is seeking to enlist so-called “constitutional” sheriffs in rural, conservative counties across the country to detain Trump’s political enemies. Or, as he says, carry out “live-streamed swatting raids” against individuals on his “Deep State target list.” “This is a deadly serious report,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) told Raw Story. “A retired U.S. military officer has drawn up a ‘Deep State target list’ of public officials he considers traitors, along with our family members and staff. His hit list is a vigilante death warrant for hundreds of Americans and a clear and present danger to the survival of American democracy and freedom."

Trump’s ‘secretary of retribution’ has a ‘target list’ of 350 people he wants arrested - Raw Story

[nonasuch]

somewhat hilariously, I have a semi-regular customer who is one of MD’s congressional reps, and he was in a couple of days ago.

as he was checking out, I said “hey I hope you don’t mind me saying this, but do you think you could ask Jamie Raskin to just, like — chill? a little? the election is so soon and I am so stressed out about it.”

and I said it jokingly and meant it mostly jokingly, so he laughed and shook my hand and said he’d see what he could do.

presumably he already knew about Current Events so I’m going to hope that his lack of apparent stress was a good sign.

[meandmybigmouth]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin is failing at his job of holding the Supreme Court accountable. While he continues issuing stern statements and making floor speeches about Justice Samuel Alito’s recent flag scandals, he isn’t actually doing anything about it. Now other Democrats—like Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland—are stepping up to fill the leadership void. Alito already blew off Durbin and Whitehouse’s demands that he recuse himself from insurrection-related cases, despite his display of Stop the Steal flags. Whitehouse followed up with a letter Monday, inquiring about a tax case from which he pressed Alito to recuse himself. 

Before the hearing for that case, Alito was interviewed for The Wall Street Journal by one of the lawyers, David Rivkin Jr. In the article, Alito declared that both he and the Supreme Court are above the law. Whitehouse wrote that it “appears that you offered an improper opinion regarding a question that might come before the Court; did so in the context of a known ongoing legal dispute involving that precise question; did so at the behest of an interviewer who as a lawyer represented a client in that ongoing dispute; and did so to the benefit of his client, your personal friend, and to the benefit of yourself, as a recipient of undisclosed gifts that are the subject of our investigation.” “I note that the Supreme Court is the only place in all of government where issues of this nature have no place or means of investigation or resolution,” he continued. “So far, my questions regarding these events seem to have disappeared into a black hole of indifference.” This letter is likely to fall into the same black hole, but it does help build the case against Alito and the rampant corruption he and fellow Justice Clarence Thomas have brought to the court. 

So disappointed in Sen. Durbin’s inaction on the SCOTUS corruption crisis. #DoBetterDurbin

[tomorrowusa]

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD-08) is a living national treasure of democracy.

Rep. Raskin visited with Alicia Menendez, Michael Steele, and Symone Sanders-Townsend at MSNBC's The Weekend to talk about a number of issues.

He said Trump "came back to the scene of the crime" with his first visit to Capitol Hill since 06 January 2021. Trump met with GOP members of both chambers who ignored the fact that he put their lives at risk with his coup attempt.

Of course Trump offered no apology for his endangerment of their lives or for his damage to American institutions of democracy. It says a lot about the mindset of most Republicans these days that they will suffer no humiliation too great to show their grovelling loyalty to wannabe dictator Trump.

Rep. Raskin also talked about the GOP Supreme Court's NRA-friendly approval of the use of "bump stocks" – devices that permit assault rifles to be converted into machine guns.

Republicans willingly gave up their claim to being the party of law and order so they could incessantly pander to Trump's lust for dictatorship and to empower the NRA's goal of putting machine guns in the hands of every nutjob in the country.

This election requires more personal effort than previous ones. Be willing to do more grassroots work and make our case to low-information voters you may know.

[mightyflamethrower]

What's a Little Creepy About the FBI's Arrest Warrant for a Blaze News Reporter

We have another instance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation going off the reservation. A Blaze News reporter who has done a couple of stories on the January 6 riot, which embarrassed the Justice Department, will be forced to turn himself in on Friday. Steve Baker has cooperated with the Justice Department, which has had Baker on their radar for months.  

The creepy part about this story is that this reporter doesn’t know what charges he’s facing. The FBI has instructed him to wear clothing that suggests he’ll be forced to wear an orange jumpsuit. However, the Justice Department told Baker and his legal team that misdemeanors were the only charges facing the journalist. The outlet had all the details about the legal drama in a lengthy post, including the stories that might have painted a target on Baker’s back 

"They didn’t have to go this route," Baker told Blaze News on Tuesday evening. "We have been told that my charges are only misdemeanors. And my attorneys have been assured that this will be an ‘in and out’ affair with 'no intention' to detain me. But rather than issuing a simple order to appear, they went the 'arrest warrant' route."  What's more, Baker said he still does not know what the charges against him are, noting to Blaze News that the powers that be won't tell his attorney about the charges because they believe Baker will post them on social media.  Baker's Dallas attorney, James Lee Bright, added to Blaze News that withholding the nature of the charges against his client is a "really unusual" move. Bright also said he's hoping to get a copy of the complaint against Baker as early as possible Friday morning.  […]  Bright told Blaze News that he's "disturbed" about what's transpiring with his client, especially given that Baker has been "in full compliance" all this time. Bright also said the federal government "three-plus years later going after people who were legitimate functioning journalists that day" appears designed to have an "absolute chilling effect."  […]  Baker added that when he asked his other attorney, William Shipley, why the federal government is treating him like this, Shipley replied, "You know why. You've been poking them in the eye for three years" 

Baker's first Jan. 6 analysis for Blaze News came last October, following countless hours in a House subcommittee office looking at frame after frame of Jan. 6 closed-circuit video — and it had him wondering: did Capitol Police Special Agent David Lazarus perjure himself in the Oath Keepers trial? 

Soon after, the slow pace of getting an unrestricted look at everything recorded on video prompted Blaze Media editor in chief Matthew Peterson's appeal to House Speaker Mike Johnson to release all the videos. On Nov. 17, Johnson did just that. 

Baker's investigative efforts also resulted in two additional analyses, both focusing on Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn: "January 6 and the N-word that wasn't" and "Harry Dunn's account of January 6 does not add up. At all." 

In December, Baker alleged he uncovered major irregularities involving Dunn, Capitol Police, the press, and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland). 

In January, Baker asserted that just-released U.S. Capitol closed-circuit TV video clips from Jan. 6 show Lazarus gave false testimony in the Oath Keepers trial. 

Like Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, and Alex Gutentag, Baker also touched upon the curious case of the January 6 pipe bomber and the alleged targeting of the Republican National Committee, wherein new evidence suggests that the RNC was not the target. The FBI might have misrepresented the location of the supposed explosive device, which a then-FBI contractor discovered. 

The FBI has harassed and targeted pro-life activists, so going after reporters who have questioned their narratives about some highly politicized stories isn’t shocking. The Obama CIA and DOJ colluded to manufacture a fake narrative about Russian collusion against Donald Trump. The FBI made up evidence to justify an illegal FISA spy warrant against Trump campaign officials. The FBI and the Secret Service appear to be engaged in a cover-up regarding the ever-elusive pipe bomber who cannot be found. They can find hundreds who entered the Capitol building that day, but not this guy.  

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

How did a symbol associated with Donald Trump’s election subversion efforts end up outside the home of a Supreme Court justice? MSNBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin breaks down a New York Times report that’s raising fresh concerns over Justice Samuel Alito’s impartiality, and speaks to Congressman Jamie Raskin about the need for ethics reform at the nation’s highest court.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Horsey

* * *

Justice Alito’s arrogance threatens the Court

May 30, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

In an act oozing with contempt for the American people and reckless disregard for the Supreme Court, Justice Alito refused to recuse himself from cases involving Trump's election interference and unlawful retention of national defense documents. Alito sent two letters to members of Congress asserting that “no reasonable person” would conclude that Alito is required to recuse himself. See Letter from Samuel Alito to Senators Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse.

In his letter to Durbin and Whitehouse, Alito advances factual defenses that were shown to be false or misleading before Alito sent the letter to the Senators. As noted in articles in the NYTimes and Newsweek, Alito’s claim that the Stop the Steal flag was flown in retaliation after a dispute with a neighbor is false. Alito flew the Stop the Steal flag one month prior to the neighborhood dispute. See NYTimes, The Alitos, the Neighborhood Clash and the Upside-Down Flag (accessible to all) and Newsweek, Samuel Alito's Flag Claims Challenged.

Alito also seeks to avoid the controversy by claiming that

His wife is a co-owner of their Virginia home and owner of their beach house, so she “has the right to use the property as she sees fit.”

His “wife is a private citizen, and she possesses the same First Amendment, rights as every other American. She makes her own decisions, and I have always respected her right to do so.”

He “had no involvement in the decision to fly” the Appeal to Heaven flag.

He did not know that the Appeal to Heaven flag supported the “Stop the Steal” message.

His “wife likes flags,” while Alito “does not.”

It is a sad day when a Supreme Court justice lies to US Senators and the American people over a matter of national urgency. But even if we credit Alito’s falsehoods, the question of his recusal is not a close one.

Let’s make this easy. Suppose Alito’s wife flew a Swastika flag over their joint residence for three days. Alito then claims that he asked his wife to remove the flag but she refused. He also claims he did not understand the antisemitic meaning of the Nazi flag. He is then asked to recuse himself from a case before the Court that seeks to prohibit antisemitic speech. Alito could not credibly claim (as he does here) that “no reasonable person” would believe he is required to recuse himself.

The relevant canon of ethics provides:

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.” Canon 3(B)(1)-(2), Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court.

Tens of millions of Americans reasonably doubt that Alito can fairly discharge his duties. Alito is gaslighting the American people—a technique he learned from Trump. Having been caught in his lie he is doubling down on the lie—while pretending to be aggrieved that Americans doubt his veracity.

This debacle is a stain on the Court and an indictment of Justice Robert’s leadership. His silence is an insult to the American people. He is the Chief Justice of the United States—not merely of the Supreme Court. He holds an office created by and mentioned in the Constitution. He has failed miserably in discharging his duties to oversee the courts of the United States.

What can we do? As always, we can gain control of Congress and the Presidency in order to expand the Court and impose an enforceable code of ethics on the Court.

But is there anything else? Representative Jamie Raskin penned an op-ed in the New York Times arguing that the other justices on the Court can force Alito to recuse himself. See Jamie Raskin: How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas to Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases. (Accessible to all.)

Rep. Raskin writes that the DOJ “can petition the other seven justices to require Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves not as a matter of grace but as a matter of law.”

Raskin continues:

The constitutional and statutory standards apply to Supreme Court justices. The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the “supreme law of the land,” and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices like other judges. This recusal statute, if triggered, is not a friendly suggestion. It is Congress’s command, binding on the justices, just as the due process clause is. The Supreme Court cannot disregard this law just because it directly affects one or two of its justices. When the arguments are properly before the court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh and Sonia Sotomayor will have both a constitutional obligation and a statutory obligation to enforce recusal standards.

Of course, Jamie Raskin’s approach calls for the cooperation of Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, as well as Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. Will that happen? Doubtful, but public pressure may bring about that result.

At a meeting with the newsletter's Founding Members on Wednesday, a reader who is a member of the Supreme Court Bar said that he had just sent a letter to Chief Justice Roberts tendering his resignation. The reader no longer practices before the Supreme Court, so resigning will not interfere with his livelihood.

There are tens of thousands of lawyers in a similar position—they were admitted to the Supreme Court as a ceremonial matter or in connection with briefing on which they appeared. If tens of thousands of lawyers sent similar letters of resignation to Justice Roberts—and published those letters in local newspapers and major media outlets—it would increase pressure on Roberts and focus public attention on the ethics scandal on the Supreme Court.

Sounds like something a lawyer’s group defending American democracy should take on as a project! See also, Slate, (3/13/2020), Judge James Dannenberg writes John Roberts a letter resigning from the Supreme Court Bar.

Sadly, it will likely get worse before it gets better. It will get better, but not before tens of millions of Americans believe they should take to streets in protest. The Supreme Court is systematically stripping Americans of civil liberties and constitutional rights for the first time in the history of our nation. That is worth peaceful protests to protect our rights.

It will take time, but the American people will awaken. Justice Alito is pouring accelerant on the conflagration engulfing the Court. It will take more outrageous decisions and arrogant behavior by Alito, Thomas, and Roberts, but the time will come. Until then, each of us must elevate the crisis on the Supreme Court as an issue that deserves our undivided attention in 2024.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[posttexasstressdisorder]

Go, Jamie, GO!

[antidrumpfs]

WATCH: Rep. Jamie Raskin speaks at 2024 Democratic National Convention | 2024 DNC Night 1