SCOTUS

[Kismet]

The core issue for SCOTUS is that they have no policies on ethics. Currently, its up to each justice to police themselves.
Good luck with that - Thomas is prima facie evidence that something is needed. He should have recused on the executive privilege case but he chose to vote NO knowing that his spouse was in on January 6 in some fashion or another.

Maybe all those years ago, some were correct in their assessment of his moral character. Too late now. He isn't going anywhere on the court except out in a pine box.

[Peter Brown]

The core issue for SCOTUS is that they have no policies on ethics. Currently, its up to each justice to police themselves.
Good luck with that - Thomas is prima facie evidence that something is needed. He should have recused on the executive privilege case but he chose to vote NO knowing that his spouse was in on January 6 in some fashion or another.

Maybe all those years ago, some were correct in their assessment of his moral character. Too late now. He isn't going anywhere on the court except out in a pine box.

“in on”



Do you know how many people went to DC on January 6?

Trump was Trump here, unhinged, unprofessional, dangerous. But maybe stop trying to bring every other human being you dislike into the conversation. Some of these folks believed and still believe that Democrats control inner city machine voting to the detriment of democracy.

[Kismet]

The core issue for SCOTUS is that they have no policies on ethics. Currently, its up to each justice to police themselves.
Good luck with that - Thomas is prima facie evidence that something is needed. He should have recused on the executive privilege case but he chose to vote NO knowing that his spouse was in on January 6 in some fashion or another.

Maybe all those years ago, some were correct in their assessment of his moral character. Too late now. He isn't going anywhere on the court except out in a pine box.

“in on”



Do you know how many people went to DC on January 6?

Trump was Trump here, unhinged, unprofessional, dangerous. But maybe stop trying to bring every other human being you dislike into the conversation. Some of these folks believed and still believe that Democrats control inner city machine voting to the detriment of democracy.

Delusion becomes you Einstein.

[MDlaxfan76]

This really should have been a no-brainer for Thomas to recuse...or vote with the rest of the Court. Thomas was the sole dissent on a slam dunk matter, choosing to side with Trump to deny access to records that could show various levels of involvement in the planning of Jan 6, whether specific to violence or the effort to make extra-legal attempts to reverse a lawful, certified election result. Whether his wife was involved was (and is) an open question that those records might reveal. And whether they reveal direct involvement of Ginni Thomas, they most certainly had the potential to reveal the involvement of those with whom she was closely affiliated. Her "activism" in this specific matter, both before and after Jan 6, surely should have been easy grounds for recusal. But it shouldn't have needed that at all as this was such a slam dunk for denial of Trump's ridiculous objection.

(CNN) Conservative activist Virginia "Ginni" Thomas said in an interview published Monday that although she attended a rally on January 6, 2021, she "played no role" in planning the events that day and that she doesn't involve her husband, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in the political work she does pushing conservative causes.

The rare interview with conservative publication the Washington Free Beacon, comes as progressives and some legal ethics experts see a potential conflict with Thomas' activism and her husband's work on the Supreme Court.
They point specifically to a recent January order when the court -- over the dissent of Clarence Thomas -- cleared the way for the release of presidential records from the Trump White House to a congressional committee investigating the US Capitol attack.

In recent weeks, media outlets, including CNN, have run stories exploring Ginni Thomas' long term activism and calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse.

"Federal recusal law says that any justice 'shall disqualify' if their impartiality might reasonably be questioned," said Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, a group seeking more transparency from Supreme Court justices.

"Here Virginia Thomas attended the rally on the ellipse, she is close to those who have been subpoenaed by the Committee and she is involved in several groups that have cast doubt on the results of the 2020 election," he said.

But in the new interview, Ginni Thomas said that "the legal lane is my husband's" and she seemed to distance herself from the January 6, 2021, events.

"Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles and aspirations for America," Thomas told the Free Beacon. "But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too," she said.
"Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me, and I don't involve him in my work," she said.

Supreme Court justices largely make their own decisions whether to recuse themselves from a case, acting cautiously because if they were to step away, no other judge could take their place to rule. Critics say the system is flawed and there should be more transparency and accountability.

In the interview, Ginni Thomas, who runs a political consulting firm, stressed that she is going to continue her role as a political activist.

"If you are going to be true to yourself and your professional calling, you can never be intimidated, chilled or censored by what the press or others say," she said.

She also clarified her actions on January 6. She said that she attended a rally but returned home before former President Donald Trump took the stage at noon. Rioting broke out after that.

"I was disappointed and frustrated that there was violence that happened following a peaceful gathering of Trump supporters on the Ellipse on January 6th," she said and added that she played "no role" with those who were planning and leading the events. "There are stories in the press suggesting I paid or arranged for buses. I did not."

"There are important and legitimate substantive questions about achieving goals like electoral integrity, racial equality, and political accountability that a democratic system like ours needs to be able to discuss and debate rationally in the political square," she said.

Social media posts obtained by Slate show her cheering on the January 6 rally that preceded the Capitol attack, though she later made clear, according to Slate, that she had published the posts before the rally turned violent.

Since the rally she has signed a letter to House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy urging the Republican conference to remove both GOP Reps. Liz Cheney of Wyoming and Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois due to their "egregious actions" as members of the House of Representative's select committee investigating the insurrection. Cheney and Kinzinger are serving at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

[a fan]

Well, there's a reason we don't elect our Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. Imposing changes to the SC based on polling data makes less sense than electing judges.

That's fair, but how else can we the people affect change on the Court? These polls let Congress know just how popular some of these ideas are...and might (might) lead to legislation.

[seacoaster]

Well, there's a reason we don't elect our Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. Imposing changes to the SC based on polling data makes less sense than electing judges.

That's fair, but how else can we the people affect change on the Court? These polls let Congress know just how popular some of these ideas are...and might (might) lead to legislation.

On the ethics and recusal issues, could not Roberts, as the head of the Article III branch, make many of these changes unilaterally?

[AOD]

Well, there's a reason we don't elect our Federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. Imposing changes to the SC based on polling data makes less sense than electing judges.

That's fair, but how else can we the people affect change on the Court? These polls let Congress know just how popular some of these ideas are...and might (might) lead to legislation.

I would normally say through legislation, but I've lost count as to how many times a bill proposing a Supreme Court code of ethics has been introduced in the House only to languish and die. Still, pressure on local legislatures can be effective. Public vigilance can be another form of pressure that causes change. Justice Roberts not long ago claimed each Justice does consult the judicial code of ethics when considering sticky personal issues. Obviously, that hasn't been the case. The press and Supreme Court watchers need to highlight every instance in which a Justice participates in a decision with a potential conflict of interest. This will necessarily erode public confidence in the Court in the short run, but it will also encourage the Court to adopt its own rules.

[seacoaster]

Predictably, Senator Sedition goes Pizzagate on the nominee:

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1504 ... 63/photo/1

[dislaxxic]

The Great Republican Campaign to Erase Ketanji Brown Jackson

In the spring of 2016, Barack Obama nominated federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat that opened up on the Supreme Court with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, under the pretext of adhering to a rule about not seating a nominee in the final year of a presidential term, determined that there would be no hearings, no courtesy meetings, and no vote for Garland. He was blanked completely, and Scalia’s seat was eventually filled by a Trump nominee, Neil Gorsuch. One of the lessons derived from that episode was that presidents who are Democrats will not be allowed to fill Supreme Court vacancies under a Republican-controlled Senate (a promise McConnell reiterated about a potential Joe Biden nominee after the midterm elections).

There is also a subtler lesson: Democratic nominees aren’t even worth taking seriously. Ignoring them and their individual lives altogether becomes a strategy that serves to undermine their seriousness and credibility.

That appears to be the GOP plan with respect to President Joe Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson. She’s eminently qualified, she comes with a mile-long judicial and professional record that appears to include almost nothing to attack. Polling shows that voters, particularly Black and women voters, are energized and inspired by her nomination. They’d like to hear more. But now that the GOP senses that going after Jackson with a full-throttle assault will backfire in the 2022 midterms with voters who may perceive it as racist and sexist, the party has decided to pretend she is just a judge-shaped nullity.

While it’s true that Fox News host Tucker Carlson welcomed Jackson’s nomination with his trademark blend of racism and meanness—demanding to see her LSAT scores as proof that she really belonged at Harvard—he generally seems to be among the outliers. Politico reported this week that in the absence of a coordinated or coherent attack strategy, some Republican senators plan to just spend the hearing whining about how Democrats treated Brett Kavanaugh. Having concluded that they can’t tank the nomination, but they also can’t lose their six-vote supermajority, distraction is the better part of valor.

So McConnell, who concedes that there is “no question” Jackson is qualified, plans to attack her for the groups that support her nomination, under the theory that if some of them favor court expansion, she must favor court expansion as well. “Curiously, the same radicals who want to turn Democrats into the party of court packing also badly wanted Judge Jackson for this vacancy,” McConnell warned on March 3. In McConnell’s world, if any Democrat supports a nominee, he votes no. That Jackson has remarkable bipartisan support, in his mind, can’t be allowed to matter because her “team” can’t be allowed to win.

..

[Peter Brown]

Predictably, Senator Sedition goes Pizzagate on the nominee:

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1504 ... 63/photo/1

She’s going to win the nomination. I’d ask her about cultural hot button issues, so Americans understand the thought process of leftists.

Ask her if Lia Thomas should be allowed to compete against girls.

Ask her if police should be defunded.

Ask her if sex ed should be taught to first graders.

Ask her if CRT should be taught in school.

Ask her if the names Washington and Jefferson should be removed from public life.


Those kinds of questions would be far more instructive to Americans than questions on stare decisis.

[jhu72]

Predictably, Senator Sedition goes Pizzagate on the nominee:

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1504 ... 63/photo/1

The Great Republican Campaign to Erase Ketanji Brown Jackson

In the spring of 2016, Barack Obama nominated federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat that opened up on the Supreme Court with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, under the pretext of adhering to a rule about not seating a nominee in the final year of a presidential term, determined that there would be no hearings, no courtesy meetings, and no vote for Garland. He was blanked completely, and Scalia’s seat was eventually filled by a Trump nominee, Neil Gorsuch. One of the lessons derived from that episode was that presidents who are Democrats will not be allowed to fill Supreme Court vacancies under a Republican-controlled Senate (a promise McConnell reiterated about a potential Joe Biden nominee after the midterm elections).

There is also a subtler lesson: Democratic nominees aren’t even worth taking seriously. Ignoring them and their individual lives altogether becomes a strategy that serves to undermine their seriousness and credibility.

That appears to be the GOP plan with respect to President Joe Biden’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson. She’s eminently qualified, she comes with a mile-long judicial and professional record that appears to include almost nothing to attack. Polling shows that voters, particularly Black and women voters, are energized and inspired by her nomination. They’d like to hear more. But now that the GOP senses that going after Jackson with a full-throttle assault will backfire in the 2022 midterms with voters who may perceive it as racist and sexist, the party has decided to pretend she is just a judge-shaped nullity.

While it’s true that Fox News host Tucker Carlson welcomed Jackson’s nomination with his trademark blend of racism and meanness—demanding to see her LSAT scores as proof that she really belonged at Harvard—he generally seems to be among the outliers. Politico reported this week that in the absence of a coordinated or coherent attack strategy, some Republican senators plan to just spend the hearing whining about how Democrats treated Brett Kavanaugh. Having concluded that they can’t tank the nomination, but they also can’t lose their six-vote supermajority, distraction is the better part of valor.

So McConnell, who concedes that there is “no question” Jackson is qualified, plans to attack her for the groups that support her nomination, under the theory that if some of them favor court expansion, she must favor court expansion as well. “Curiously, the same radicals who want to turn Democrats into the party of court packing also badly wanted Judge Jackson for this vacancy,” McConnell warned on March 3. In McConnell’s world, if any Democrat supports a nominee, he votes no. That Jackson has remarkable bipartisan support, in his mind, can’t be allowed to matter because her “team” can’t be allowed to win.

..

... no this can't be. You guys are wrong. Kellyanne assured me (us) that republiCONs wouldn't play silly games trying to sabotage Justice Brown.

[MDlaxfan76]

Predictably, Senator Sedition goes Pizzagate on the nominee:

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1504 ... 63/photo/1

She’s going to win the nomination. I’d ask her about cultural hot button issues, so Americans understand the thought process of leftists.

Ask her if Lia Thomas should be allowed to compete against girls.

Ask her if police should be defunded.

Ask her if sex ed should be taught to first graders.

Ask her if CRT should be taught in school.

Ask her if the names Washington and Jefferson should be removed from public life.


Those kinds of questions would be far more instructive to Americans than questions on stare decisis.

Well, that's indeed a de-masking of your intent.

F the law, F the Constitution, ask her what her opinions are about the sorts of dumb "social" issues that partisan hacks like Petey want to exaggerate for political effect.

SAD

[Peter Brown]

Predictably, Senator Sedition goes Pizzagate on the nominee:

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1504 ... 63/photo/1

She’s going to win the nomination. I’d ask her about cultural hot button issues, so Americans understand the thought process of leftists.

Ask her if Lia Thomas should be allowed to compete against girls.

Ask her if police should be defunded.

Ask her if sex ed should be taught to first graders.

Ask her if CRT should be taught in school.

Ask her if the names Washington and Jefferson should be removed from public life.


Those kinds of questions would be far more instructive to Americans than questions on stare decisis.

Well, that's indeed a de-masking of your intent.

F the law, F the Constitution, ask her what her opinions are about the sorts of dumb "social" issues that partisan hacks like Petey want to exaggerate for political effect.

SAD

Why waste time asking a leftist judge about the US Constitution? They hate it. They don’t pay any attention to it. Their votes on most issues are made regardless of case and constitutional law, and obviously with zero common sense.

This isn’t some aha moment, MD. We all know it, some of us are simply unafraid to address it.

Cultural issues form a bedrock of society for better or worse, and judges ultimately are called upon to opine on the legality of such.

Anyone would much rather know Judge Brown’s opinions on Lia Thomas than a rehearsed speech on stare decisis. Let’s know what we are REALLY getting with judges. I don’t think this is outrageous in the least. I mean, liberal senators went after Judge Barrett for being Catholic, I think the least we can do is inquire about leftist judges whether they believe trans men should be allowed to compete against women in ladies sports.

[MDlaxfan76]

Predictably, Senator Sedition goes Pizzagate on the nominee:

https://twitter.com/donmoyn/status/1504 ... 63/photo/1

She’s going to win the nomination. I’d ask her about cultural hot button issues, so Americans understand the thought process of leftists.

Ask her if Lia Thomas should be allowed to compete against girls.

Ask her if police should be defunded.

Ask her if sex ed should be taught to first graders.

Ask her if CRT should be taught in school.

Ask her if the names Washington and Jefferson should be removed from public life.


Those kinds of questions would be far more instructive to Americans than questions on stare decisis.

Well, that's indeed a de-masking of your intent.

F the law, F the Constitution, ask her what her opinions are about the sorts of dumb "social" issues that partisan hacks like Petey want to exaggerate for political effect.

SAD

Why waste time asking a leftist judge about the US Constitution? They hate it. They don’t pay any attention to it. Their votes on most issues are made regardless of case and constitutional law, and obviously with zero common sense.

This isn’t some aha moment, MD. We all know it, some of us are simply unafraid to address it.

Cultural issues form a bedrock of society for better or worse, and judges ultimately are called upon to opine on the legality of such.

Anyone would much rather know Judge Brown’s opinions on Lia Thomas than a rehearsed speech on stare decisis. Let’s know what we are REALLY getting with judges. I don’t think this is outrageous in the least. I mean, liberal senators went after Judge Barrett for being Catholic, I think the least we can do is inquire about leftist judges whether they believe trans men should be allowed to compete against women in ladies sports.

I'm quoting this one just so you can't edit or delete it.

Says everything about you we need to know on this topic.

[RedFromMI]

PB is incensed that there were questions on whether ACB might have her Catholic faith determine her approach to the law in an inappropriate manner. Not specifically whether she was Catholic or not.

But then he wants Judge Jackson to be selected on the basis of her personal opinions on "cultural issues" - or at least "exposed" as having personal views (which should not be the basis from which she bases her legal opinions) contrary to what he deems acceptable.

[a fan]

PB is incensed that there were questions on whether ACB might have her Catholic faith determine her approach to the law in an inappropriate manner. Not specifically whether she was Catholic or not.

But then he wants Judge Jackson to be selected on the basis of her personal opinions on "cultural issues" - or at least "exposed" as having personal views (which should not be the basis from which she bases her legal opinions) contrary to what he deems acceptable.

it's why he's such a sh*tty troll. He can't keep his "values" straight for even five minutes.....contradicting himself at every turn.

But yeah, he's REALLY serious about these fake values of his....

[Peter Brown]

PB is incensed that there were questions on whether ACB might have her Catholic faith determine her approach to the law in an inappropriate manner. Not specifically whether she was Catholic or not.

But then he wants Judge Jackson to be selected on the basis of her personal opinions on "cultural issues" - or at least "exposed" as having personal views (which should not be the basis from which she bases her legal opinions) contrary to what he deems acceptable.

Those personal opinions absolutely form the basis for her legal opinions. The legal opinion is merely the mechanic to promote the personal, especially for leftist judges.

One’s religious faith is fair game too. I have no problem with a Senator inquiring of ACB if her catholic faith informs her legal opinions. It was the persistent attack by some Democratic judges that raised the specter of anti-Catholicism.

The reason leftists don’t want Judge Brown to be asked these cultural questions is most if not all leftist opinions on American culture are wildly unpopular. She’ll still get on the court regardless how far left she is, but at least this way, we don’t need to pretend that a judge cares about the law, but rather, are just promoting an ideology.

I’m not certain why this is even remarkable. Honesty can be cleansing.

[a fan]

PB is incensed that there were questions on whether ACB might have her Catholic faith determine her approach to the law in an inappropriate manner. Not specifically whether she was Catholic or not.

But then he wants Judge Jackson to be selected on the basis of her personal opinions on "cultural issues" - or at least "exposed" as having personal views (which should not be the basis from which she bases her legal opinions) contrary to what he deems acceptable.

Those personal opinions absolutely form the basis for her legal opinions. The legal opinion is merely the mechanic to promote the personal, especially for leftist judges.

One’s religious faith is fair game too. I have no problem with a Senator inquiring of ACB if her catholic faith informs her legal opinions. It was the persistent attack by some Democratic judges that raised the specter of anti-Catholicism.

The reason leftists don’t want Judge Brown to be asked these cultural questions is most if not all leftist opinions on American culture are wildly unpopular. She’ll still get on the court regardless how far left she is, but at least this way, we don’t need to pretend that a judge cares about the law, but rather, are just promoting an ideology.

I’m not certain why this is even remarkable.

Nice dumb*ss attempt at a rhetorical recovery.

You told us that It's all about following the Constitution, remember? And your religion should have ZERO bearing on that, Pete. Or values.

Keep your fake "values" straight for a change, Pete. You're all over the road, as usual.

[Peter Brown]

PB is incensed that there were questions on whether ACB might have her Catholic faith determine her approach to the law in an inappropriate manner. Not specifically whether she was Catholic or not.

But then he wants Judge Jackson to be selected on the basis of her personal opinions on "cultural issues" - or at least "exposed" as having personal views (which should not be the basis from which she bases her legal opinions) contrary to what he deems acceptable.

Those personal opinions absolutely form the basis for her legal opinions. The legal opinion is merely the mechanic to promote the personal, especially for leftist judges.

One’s religious faith is fair game too. I have no problem with a Senator inquiring of ACB if her catholic faith informs her legal opinions. It was the persistent attack by some Democratic judges that raised the specter of anti-Catholicism.

The reason leftists don’t want Judge Brown to be asked these cultural questions is most if not all leftist opinions on American culture are wildly unpopular. She’ll still get on the court regardless how far left she is, but at least this way, we don’t need to pretend that a judge cares about the law, but rather, are just promoting an ideology.

I’m not certain why this is even remarkable.

Nice dumb*ss attempt at a rhetorical recovery.

You told us that It's all about following the Constitution, remember? And your religion should have ZERO bearing on that, Pete. Or values.

Keep your fake "values" straight for a change, Pete. You're all over the road, as usual.

Interesting take.

Law is the constitution.

One’s religious faith should not have a direct bearing on the interpretation of law other than the basic common good, even when ‘the dogma lives loudly within you’.

I have no problem with senators asking any prospective nominee if they can refrain from utilizing religion as the basis for legal opinions; but it’s a tricky question sure to trip up most questioners. The point of these questions is to know about the nominees ideology, not whether their answers are defaulting. ACB was getting in, as will Brown.

But, comes Kentanji Brown now, and you think we shouldn’t inquire of Judge Brown how she views certain cultural events because that too might reveal a bias? Hmmmm. That makes me want to ask even more.

[a fan]

Interesting take.

FFS, pete....... It's YOUR take. Are you unable to remember your own posts?

But, comes Kentanji Brown now, and you think we shouldn’t inquire of Judge Brown how she views certain cultural events because that too might reveal a bias?

My take is simple: every Justice is biased, and not one Justice we've ever had simply follows the Constitution to the exclusion of all else. Zippo. Zero of them have done this.

If they all simply followed the Constitution, 99% of rulings would be 9-0.

So with that in mind, I just want them to be qualified. That's it. All of our Justices are. So I'm happy on that front.