SCOTUS

[Kismet]

Weasels Alto and Thomas supported a suit filed by Missouri to block his NY sentencing. They lost 7-2.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-co ... york-case/

In the meantime, more graft disclosed by Thomas and Harlan Crowe.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Do Clarence and Ginnie ever pay their own way? Or is the job just the fulcrum for the grift?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... rlan-crow/

"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s lavish travel provided by Republican donor Harlan Crow included two more flights aboard the billionaire’s private jet that were not publicly disclosed, according to a letter Monday from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) to Crow’s attorney.

Cut through the 2024 election noise. Get The Campaign Moment newsletter.
Wyden, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, wrote that he is seeking additional information about travel that Crow provided to the justice and additional records because he is concerned that Crow might have improperly used the gifts to lower his tax bills, a claim Crow denies.

The two flights add to a long list of travel and other perks Thomas has received from Crow, including private school tuition for a relative and the purchase of the home where Thomas’s mother lived in Georgia.

The largesse and other ethics controversies swirling around the court prompted President Biden to propose a biding ethics code and 18-year term limits for the justices last week, a package of overhauls that has little chance of passing Congress at the moment.

“The questions I’ve been asking of Mr. Crow and Justice Thomas about these luxury trips and lavish gifts are not really all that complicated,” Wyden said in a statement to The Washington Post. “How many of these trips happened, and when it comes to Mr. Crow’s taxes, is everything on the level or did he claim a whole lot of personal travel as write-offs?”

U.S. Customs and Border Protection documents show Thomas and his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, took a roundtrip flight from Hawaii to New Zealand aboard Crow’s private jet in November 2010, according to the letter. Crow was onboard the flights.

It was unclear how the Thomases traveled to Hawaii or how they got home.

Wyden wrote that Thomas has not listed the flights in financial disclosure forms that Supreme Court justices are required to file, even though he has previously amended the forms to include other travel aboard Crow’s jet.

Thomas did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has said disclosure rules at the time of the travel did not require him to report the flights because they fell under a “personal hospitality” exemption. Justices are now required to report such travel.

Michael Zona, a spokesman for Crow, said in a statement that Wyden’s inquiries are “intended to harass a private citizen” and that Congress has no role in tax enforcement.

“Mr. Crow and his businesses are in good standing with the IRS,” Zona said. “He has always followed applicable tax law as advised by national accounting firms who serve as his tax advisors. It’s concerning that Senator Wyden is abusing his committee’s powers as part of a politically motivated campaign against the Supreme Court."

[dislaxxic]

Donald Trump Jailed a Critic During His First Term. Does the Supreme Court Care?

It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut violation of the Constitution than jailing an American for expressing his political opinions. But, as a federal judge found, that is what happened to Donald Trump’s attorney-turned-adversary Michael Cohen in the summer of 2020. Americans can agree that the courts must provide an adequate remedy for that wrong, as argued in a new amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Despite all the coverage of Cohen, his unlawful imprisonment is an overlooked episode of the first Trump administration. A federal judge found that Cohen had been incarcerated in “retaliation” for his choice to speak critically of the president and ordered him to be released. But when Cohen filed a damages lawsuit against the individual officials responsible, two federal courts dismissed it, effectively ruling that there is no consequence for officials who imprison critics of the president.

We are hopeful these wrong decisions will be overturned by the United States Supreme Court. (One of us is Cohen’s attorney, and the other is his friend.) But whatever result the court process yields, every American should be alert to the danger this case represents.

[snip]

Cohen later sought to hold Trump and his subordinates accountable for their conduct. Cohen brought a Bivens action, named for a 1971 Supreme Court case. Bivens allows a plaintiff to sue federal officials in their individual capacity for violations of the plaintiff’s rights. SCOTUS has said that the primary purpose of a Bivens claim is to deter unconstitutional actions by federal officials.

It'll be awhile before this gets settled, but can anyone disagree that this cause is right and proper to press forward on?

..

[PizzaSnake]

Donald Trump Jailed a Critic During His First Term. Does the Supreme Court Care?

It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut violation of the Constitution than jailing an American for expressing his political opinions. But, as a federal judge found, that is what happened to Donald Trump’s attorney-turned-adversary Michael Cohen in the summer of 2020. Americans can agree that the courts must provide an adequate remedy for that wrong, as argued in a new amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Despite all the coverage of Cohen, his unlawful imprisonment is an overlooked episode of the first Trump administration. A federal judge found that Cohen had been incarcerated in “retaliation” for his choice to speak critically of the president and ordered him to be released. But when Cohen filed a damages lawsuit against the individual officials responsible, two federal courts dismissed it, effectively ruling that there is no consequence for officials who imprison critics of the president.

We are hopeful these wrong decisions will be overturned by the United States Supreme Court. (One of us is Cohen’s attorney, and the other is his friend.) But whatever result the court process yields, every American should be alert to the danger this case represents.

[snip]

Cohen later sought to hold Trump and his subordinates accountable for their conduct. Cohen brought a Bivens action, named for a 1971 Supreme Court case. Bivens allows a plaintiff to sue federal officials in their individual capacity for violations of the plaintiff’s rights. SCOTUS has said that the primary purpose of a Bivens claim is to deter unconstitutional actions by federal officials.

It'll be awhile before this gets settled, but can anyone disagree that this cause is right and proper to press forward on?

..

You holding your breath waiting for the Roberts court to do the right and just thing?

[dislaxxic]

No, no breath exercises, except to lower my blood pressure...just hoping to keep the issue in view, as it really is another trending issue related to accountability and not letting The Moron and his goons get away with trashing the system like this.

Don must be sweating bullets thinking about the years he will spend in court/prison if he doesn't somehow steal this election...

..

[a fan]

Donald Trump Jailed a Critic During His First Term. Does the Supreme Court Care?

It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut violation of the Constitution than jailing an American for expressing his political opinions. But, as a federal judge found, that is what happened to Donald Trump’s attorney-turned-adversary Michael Cohen in the summer of 2020. Americans can agree that the courts must provide an adequate remedy for that wrong, as argued in a new amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Despite all the coverage of Cohen, his unlawful imprisonment is an overlooked episode of the first Trump administration. A federal judge found that Cohen had been incarcerated in “retaliation” for his choice to speak critically of the president and ordered him to be released. But when Cohen filed a damages lawsuit against the individual officials responsible, two federal courts dismissed it, effectively ruling that there is no consequence for officials who imprison critics of the president.

We are hopeful these wrong decisions will be overturned by the United States Supreme Court. (One of us is Cohen’s attorney, and the other is his friend.) But whatever result the court process yields, every American should be alert to the danger this case represents.

[snip]

Cohen later sought to hold Trump and his subordinates accountable for their conduct. Cohen brought a Bivens action, named for a 1971 Supreme Court case. Bivens allows a plaintiff to sue federal officials in their individual capacity for violations of the plaintiff’s rights. SCOTUS has said that the primary purpose of a Bivens claim is to deter unconstitutional actions by federal officials.

It'll be awhile before this gets settled, but can anyone disagree that this cause is right and proper to press forward on?

..

Huh. I don't remember any of this.

[PizzaSnake]

Donald Trump Jailed a Critic During His First Term. Does the Supreme Court Care?

It is hard to imagine a more clear-cut violation of the Constitution than jailing an American for expressing his political opinions. But, as a federal judge found, that is what happened to Donald Trump’s attorney-turned-adversary Michael Cohen in the summer of 2020. Americans can agree that the courts must provide an adequate remedy for that wrong, as argued in a new amicus brief at the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Despite all the coverage of Cohen, his unlawful imprisonment is an overlooked episode of the first Trump administration. A federal judge found that Cohen had been incarcerated in “retaliation” for his choice to speak critically of the president and ordered him to be released. But when Cohen filed a damages lawsuit against the individual officials responsible, two federal courts dismissed it, effectively ruling that there is no consequence for officials who imprison critics of the president.

We are hopeful these wrong decisions will be overturned by the United States Supreme Court. (One of us is Cohen’s attorney, and the other is his friend.) But whatever result the court process yields, every American should be alert to the danger this case represents.

[snip]

Cohen later sought to hold Trump and his subordinates accountable for their conduct. Cohen brought a Bivens action, named for a 1971 Supreme Court case. Bivens allows a plaintiff to sue federal officials in their individual capacity for violations of the plaintiff’s rights. SCOTUS has said that the primary purpose of a Bivens claim is to deter unconstitutional actions by federal officials.

It'll be awhile before this gets settled, but can anyone disagree that this cause is right and proper to press forward on?

..

Has there been a second administration?

[youthathletics]

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 151490f542

[PizzaSnake]

Clearly an opening for Biden to issue directives to Seal Team Six…

[a fan]

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 151490f542

Also adds Immunity for the VP. Note that every word in that ruling that explains why the POTUS is a "special case" applies to the Vice President.

VP is elected on the same ticket, and isn't part of the Legislative or Judicial Branch.

Doubt that even those who penned the majority has figured that out, yet here we are.

The descent continues. Gee, I wonder if this will bite Republicans in the butt in the future?

[OCanada]

Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have broad immunity, dimming chance of a pre-election Trump trial

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-cour ... 151490f542

Also adds Immunity for the VP. Note that every word in that ruling that explains why the POTUS is a "special case" applies to the Vice President.

VP is elected on the same ticket, and isn't part of the Legislative or Judicial Branch.

Doubt that even those who penned the majority has figured that out, yet here we are.

The descent continues. Gee, I wonder if this will bite Republicans in the butt in the future?

“Justice delayed is justice denied” has been stood on its head