#partisancaptureofjudiciary — Public Fediverse posts

This is how you get your way when democracy doesn't give it to you. You do an end-run around democracy so you can have minority rule forever! Who needs democracy, congressmen, senators or presidents when you own the judiciary?

Court decision in clean water case is more legislating from the bench https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/05/26/supreme-court-clean-water-kavanaugh/?

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPIsTheRichsBitch
#TheRichHateDemocracy
#GreedKillsDemocracy

"The Supreme Court’s decision gutting the Clean Water Act isn’t just a disaster for efforts to control pollution, although it is that, too. It is yet another illustration of the conservative supermajority’s aggressive willingness to rewrite statutes to its liking, abandon precedent and lunge to intercede in disputes that could be easily sidestepped.
...
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh (good for him!) joined the court’s three liberal justices in a far more reasoned interpretation of the Clean Water Act that would have respected text and precedent while still finding for the Sacketts.

Once again, the conservative justices reveal themselves to be textualists of convenience. The Clean Water Act requires a permit for dumping pollutants — and this includes the backfilling that the Sacketts were doing to prepare their lot — into the “waters of the United States.” Such waters are explicitly defined to include “wetlands” that are “adjacent” to streams, rivers and other navigable bodies of water covered by the law.

The majority agrees on all this but then waves its magic statutory wand to redefine, and narrow, the meaning of “adjacent.” It transforms the definition to apply solely to wetlands that are actually adjoining — that have a “continuous surface connection” — to the larger body.

This disrespects — actually, it ignores — the law’s text and traditional methods of statutory interpretation. As Kavanaugh noted, dictionary “definitions of ‘adjacent’ are notably explicit that two things need not touch each other in order to be adjacent.”
...
No longer, according to the majority, in an opinion written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., Kavanaugh charitably labeled the majority’s approach “unorthodox” and “atextual.” Another word might be lawless. The majority’s approach blithely dismissed some 45 years of consistent interpretation through eight presidential administrations, Republican as well as Democrat. Even the Trump EPA thought adjacent meant adjacent.
...
Sackett reinforces what we already knew: This is a court that doesn’t like government regulation and it is going to do what it can — text and precedent be damned — to neuter it. Thus the majority, in last year’s West Virginia v. EPA, invented a “major purpose” test to limit the reach of another major environmental law, the Clean Air Act. In this case, it adopts another new test — when Congress exercises such power “over private property” it must use “exceedingly clear language” — to rewrite the Clean Water Act to its liking.

As Justice Elena Kagan explained in a concurrence joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, this is nothing short of another judicial power grab. “The vice in both instances is the same: the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy,” Kagan wrote.

And why? Not because the law compels it, but because the majority doesn’t like the law. “Congress, the majority scolds, has unleashed the EPA to regulate ‘swimming pools and puddles,’ wreaking untold havoc on ‘a staggering array of land-owners,’” Kagan observed. “Surely something has to be done; and who else to do it but this Court? It must rescue property owners from Congress’s too-ambitious program of pollution control.”

More judicial power-grabbing to follow. The court next term will consider whether to ditch the four-decade old practice, known as Chevron deference, of having courts defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the laws they administer when the statutes are ambiguous. If Chevron falls, as seems all but inevitable, courts will be even more firmly in the driver’s seat to control policymaking.

This isn’t right, and it is also unnecessary. When the court reached out to take Sackett, the Biden administration was in the midst of rewriting the rules on how the Clean Water Act applied to wetlands. But the majority had its votes. Why wait? Why hold back? That could be the motto of this radical and impatient court."

The leaders of the right are becoming ever more aligned around autocracy and oligarchy as their preferred outcome. They have increasingly given up on democracy and no longer have any interest in sharing power or governing from the center. Part of this is attributable to their imbibing far too much of their own kool-aid and part is due to their power-hunger and greed.

They have been working toward their goal of single-party, oligarchic rule for decades--with a touch of Christian nationalism thrown in for "moral" cover. Their ongoing, and now relatively successful, capture of the judiciary as an end-run around democracy, is just one prong of their overarching plan. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, allowing unlimited money/bribery into our elections, eroding the security of the middle class, and propagandistic indoctrination of the susceptible, are all parts of this same plan.

They have been patiently moving toward dismantling our democracy and then fortunately for us, Trump came along and coopted many of the pieces of their plan, for his own, selfish, narcissistic purposes, before it was fully ready to be rolled out. They fought him initially, concerned that he would ruin their well-planned strategy, but then eventually went along with him in the hopes that their desired outcome could be achieved even more quickly than they had hoped. All the pieces were not in place, some of our democratic checks and balances and guardrails held, and that is what saved us.

Make no mistake about it, they wanted to put together an Orban-like, illiberal "democracy-in-name-only" but it wasn't fully successful. Recognizing that this was their plan all along and that they haven't abandoned it but instead doubled down, is what we need to wake up and work together to protect our democracy from this ongoing insurrection. The GOP is not a partner in our democracy any longer!!

American Autocratic Threats: Ted Cruz and John Roberts https://politicususa.substack.com/p/american-autocratic-threats-ted-cruz?

#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPIsThePartyOfTheRich
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#ImprisonSeditionists

"The U.S. is facing ongoing pressure from the right to become an autocracy, as proven by the secret Ted Cruz tapes and Justice John Roberts' refusal to testify regarding SCOTUS' ethics challenges.

It’s been a banger of a week so far, with sexual harassment scandals bringing down major TV news stars and a CEO and then on Tuesday more breaking news as we heard the secret Ted Cruz (R-TX) tapes in which he laid out the plot to steal America. At the same time, news broke that Republican Chief Justice John Roberts refused Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) request to testify regarding the massive ethics scandals infecting the Supreme Court.

Both sides of this coin are a symptom of an oppressive, out-of-control reactionary and right-wing patriarchy that feels so threatened by change that it is working to seize power and actively escalating democratic backsliding. This is not normal.

The Secret Authoritarian Plot Hatched at the Highest Levels of U.S. Government
The secret recordings of Cruz revealed his coup plot to overturn Biden’s 2020 win and kept Trump in the White House. Cruz is a U.S. Senator, who is supposed to be loyal to the United States and her government. Plotting a coup is the opposite of loyalty.

It was a deeply somber moment as Ari Melber, on whose MSNBC show the Ted Cruz tapes debuted, warned Americans not to dismiss the threat of rising autocracy evidenced by the Republican plan to steal an election.

Melber made the most important point from all of this news when he warned not to underestimate authoritarian plans. I’ve been warning about this since the Right started taking lessons from Hungary’s PM Viktor Orban — they are serious about turning the United States into a democracy in name only and the takeover isn’t going to be a violent Civil War, but rather what you see right now: using the courts to steal power, culture war propaganda and media dominance.

Melber said, "There are also those who would look at this tape with this plan and say, Ari, this sounds pretty farfetched. That sounds unlikely to get anywhere. They might want to dismiss it. They might say, hey, Ari, this wasn't going to really happen. And it didn't happen, we didn't see a fake commission popped up to do this. Let me tell you this tonight -- underestimating authoritarian plans hatched at the highest levels of your government would be a mistake. This was hidden for a reason they don't want to you know about it, don't want to you take it seriously."

It's not like these breaches of ethics are going to stop occurring. The whole court has been gamed to give partisan advantage to the GOP. They can't effect the policies they want through democracy, so they have abandoned democracy and created a court that undemocratically has resorted to creating and changing laws and policies that are outside its purview. The court keeps accruing to itself power it should never have and making decisions that aren't just or well-reasoned but purely partisan in nature. it is a rightwing attempt to end-run around democracy and seize power.

'This defines the Roberts Court': Chief justice's wife earns millions placing lawyers at firms that argue cases - Alternet.org https://www.alternet.org/this-defines-the-roberts-court/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt
#SupremeCourtEthics
#JudiciaryEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower
#GOPHatesDemocracy

"The highly controversial and highly unpopular U.S. Supreme Court isn’t just facing a historic loss of confidence, it’s now facing yet another ethics scandal that is likely to lower even further public opinion of the far-right institution that in under two decades has seen its approval rating slashed.

Although it will not hear arguments, the issue before the Supreme Court and the American people’s view of it, is, should a justice’s spouse – in this case the spouse of Chief Justice John Roberts – be able to make millions of dollars recruiting attorneys who are placed into top law firms that argue cases before it?

That’s the latest allegation, and already a spokesperson for the Court has issued a statement denying any ethical violations.

The New York Times reports that “a former colleague of Mrs. Roberts has raised concerns that her recruiting work poses potential ethics issues for the chief justice. Seeking an inquiry, the ex-colleague has provided records to the Justice Department and Congress indicating Mrs. Roberts has been paid millions of dollars in commissions for placing lawyers at firms — some of which have business before the Supreme Court, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times.”

The GOP and their wealthy benefactor's orchestration of a partisan capture of the judiciary were always meant to be a means to control the government and get their way by doing an end-run around democracy.

"The Court has become a handmaiden to the corporate elites trying to increase their dominance over us."

Opinion | It's Time to Admit This Right-Wing U.S. Supreme Court Is a Corrupt, Autocratic Tribune | Common Dreams -- JIM HIGHTOWER https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/supreme-court-is-corrupt

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#SupremePartisans
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPIsTheRichsTool
#WantTheirSerfsBack
#GOPHatesDemocracy

Question: How many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg? Answer: Four — calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Likewise, calling a small group of partisan lawyers a "supreme" court doesn't make it one. There's nothing supreme about the six-pack of far-right-wing political activists who are presently soiling our people's ideals of justice by proclaiming their own antidemocratic biases to be the law of the land. On issues of economic fairness, women's rights, racial justice, corporate supremacy, environmental protection, theocratic rule and other fundamentals, these unelected, black-robed extremists are imposing an illegitimate elitist agenda on America that the people do not want and ultimately will not tolerate.

Indeed, the imperiousness of the six ruling judges has already caused the court's public approval rating to plummet, to a mere 38%, an historic low that ranks down there with former President Donald Trump, and threatens to go as low as Congress.

This has led to a flurry of officials attesting to the honesty and political impartiality of the reigning supremes. Unfortunately for the court, these ardent defenders were the six culprits themselves.

The "integrity of the judiciary is in my bones," pontificated Neil Gorsuch, who now stands accused of having lied to senators to win his lifetime appointment.

We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court.

"(We are not) a bunch of partisan hacks," wailed Amy Coney Barrett, a partisan extremist jammed onto the court in a partisan ploy by Trump in the last few hours of his presidency.

"Judges are not politicians," protested John Roberts, who became Chief Justice because he was a rabid political lawyer who pushed the Supreme Court in 2000 to reject the rights of voters and install George W. Bush as president.

As many of its own members privately admit, Congress has become a pay-to-play lawmaking casino — closed to commoners but offering full-service access to corporate powers.

But the Supreme Court is another government entity that's even more aloof from workaday people — and it has become a handmaiden to the corporate elites trying to increase their dominance over us. The six-member, right-wing majority on this secretive powerhouse now routinely vetoes efforts by workers, environmentalist, students, local officials, voters and all others who try to rein in corporate greed and abuses.

Appointed for lifetime terms, this autocratic tribune takes pride in being sealed off from democracy, even bragging that they make rulings without being influenced by special interests. But wait — in makeup and ideology, today's court majority is a special interest, for it consists of corporate and right-wing lawyers who've obtained their wealth and position by loyally serving corporate power. And far from now being isolated from moneyed elites, the judges regularly socialize with them and attend their closed-door political meetings.

There's even a special little club, called The Supreme Court Historical Society, that frequently reveals the cozy, symbiotic relationship that exists between today's judicial and corporate cliques. Such giants as Chevron, Goldman Sachs, AT&T and Home Depot pay millions of dollars to this clubby society, gaining notice by and the appreciation of the supremes. And, yes, these special interest gifts to the court are gratefully accepted, even when the corporations have active cases before the court, seeking favorable rulings from the very judges they're glad-handing at Society soirees.

Of course, the judges insist there's no conflict of interest, because this access to them is "open to all." Sure — all who can pay $25,000 and up to get inside! Yet the clueless judges wonder why their credibility is in the ditch. Remember, in America, The People are supreme! We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court. For reform, go to FixTheCourt.com.""

The GOP and their wealthy benefactor's orchestration of a partisan capture of the judiciary were always meant to be a means to control the government and get their way by doing an end-run around democracy.

"The Court has become a handmaiden to the corporate elites trying to increase their dominance over us."

Opinion | It's Time to Admit This Right-Wing U.S. Supreme Court Is a Corrupt, Autocratic Tribune | Common Dreams -- JIM HIGHTOWER https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/supreme-court-is-corrupt

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#SupremePartisans
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPIsTheRichsTool
#WantTheirSerfsBack
#GOPHatesDemocracy

Question: How many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg? Answer: Four — calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Likewise, calling a small group of partisan lawyers a "supreme" court doesn't make it one. There's nothing supreme about the six-pack of far-right-wing political activists who are presently soiling our people's ideals of justice by proclaiming their own antidemocratic biases to be the law of the land. On issues of economic fairness, women's rights, racial justice, corporate supremacy, environmental protection, theocratic rule and other fundamentals, these unelected, black-robed extremists are imposing an illegitimate elitist agenda on America that the people do not want and ultimately will not tolerate.

Indeed, the imperiousness of the six ruling judges has already caused the court's public approval rating to plummet, to a mere 38%, an historic low that ranks down there with former President Donald Trump, and threatens to go as low as Congress.

This has led to a flurry of officials attesting to the honesty and political impartiality of the reigning supremes. Unfortunately for the court, these ardent defenders were the six culprits themselves.

The "integrity of the judiciary is in my bones," pontificated Neil Gorsuch, who now stands accused of having lied to senators to win his lifetime appointment.

We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court.

"(We are not) a bunch of partisan hacks," wailed Amy Coney Barrett, a partisan extremist jammed onto the court in a partisan ploy by Trump in the last few hours of his presidency.

"Judges are not politicians," protested John Roberts, who became Chief Justice because he was a rabid political lawyer who pushed the Supreme Court in 2000 to reject the rights of voters and install George W. Bush as president.

As many of its own members privately admit, Congress has become a pay-to-play lawmaking casino — closed to commoners but offering full-service access to corporate powers.

But the Supreme Court is another government entity that's even more aloof from workaday people — and it has become a handmaiden to the corporate elites trying to increase their dominance over us. The six-member, right-wing majority on this secretive powerhouse now routinely vetoes efforts by workers, environmentalist, students, local officials, voters and all others who try to rein in corporate greed and abuses.

Appointed for lifetime terms, this autocratic tribune takes pride in being sealed off from democracy, even bragging that they make rulings without being influenced by special interests. But wait — in makeup and ideology, today's court majority is a special interest, for it consists of corporate and right-wing lawyers who've obtained their wealth and position by loyally serving corporate power. And far from now being isolated from moneyed elites, the judges regularly socialize with them and attend their closed-door political meetings.

There's even a special little club, called The Supreme Court Historical Society, that frequently reveals the cozy, symbiotic relationship that exists between today's judicial and corporate cliques. Such giants as Chevron, Goldman Sachs, AT&T and Home Depot pay millions of dollars to this clubby society, gaining notice by and the appreciation of the supremes. And, yes, these special interest gifts to the court are gratefully accepted, even when the corporations have active cases before the court, seeking favorable rulings from the very judges they're glad-handing at Society soirees.

Of course, the judges insist there's no conflict of interest, because this access to them is "open to all." Sure — all who can pay $25,000 and up to get inside! Yet the clueless judges wonder why their credibility is in the ditch. Remember, in America, The People are supreme! We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court. For reform, go to FixTheCourt.com.""

The GOP and their wealthy benefactor's orchestration of a partisan capture of the judiciary were always meant to be a means to control the government and get their way by doing an end-run around democracy.

"The Court has become a handmaiden to the corporate elites trying to increase their dominance over us."

Opinion | It's Time to Admit This Right-Wing U.S. Supreme Court Is a Corrupt, Autocratic Tribune | Common Dreams -- JIM HIGHTOWER https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/supreme-court-is-corrupt

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#SupremePartisans
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPIsTheRichsTool
#WantTheirSerfsBack
#GOPHatesDemocracy

Question: How many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg? Answer: Four — calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Likewise, calling a small group of partisan lawyers a "supreme" court doesn't make it one. There's nothing supreme about the six-pack of far-right-wing political activists who are presently soiling our people's ideals of justice by proclaiming their own antidemocratic biases to be the law of the land. On issues of economic fairness, women's rights, racial justice, corporate supremacy, environmental protection, theocratic rule and other fundamentals, these unelected, black-robed extremists are imposing an illegitimate elitist agenda on America that the people do not want and ultimately will not tolerate.

Indeed, the imperiousness of the six ruling judges has already caused the court's public approval rating to plummet, to a mere 38%, an historic low that ranks down there with former President Donald Trump, and threatens to go as low as Congress.

This has led to a flurry of officials attesting to the honesty and political impartiality of the reigning supremes. Unfortunately for the court, these ardent defenders were the six culprits themselves.

The "integrity of the judiciary is in my bones," pontificated Neil Gorsuch, who now stands accused of having lied to senators to win his lifetime appointment.

We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court.

"(We are not) a bunch of partisan hacks," wailed Amy Coney Barrett, a partisan extremist jammed onto the court in a partisan ploy by Trump in the last few hours of his presidency.

"Judges are not politicians," protested John Roberts, who became Chief Justice because he was a rabid political lawyer who pushed the Supreme Court in 2000 to reject the rights of voters and install George W. Bush as president.

As many of its own members privately admit, Congress has become a pay-to-play lawmaking casino — closed to commoners but offering full-service access to corporate powers.

But the Supreme Court is another government entity that's even more aloof from workaday people — and it has become a handmaiden to the corporate elites trying to increase their dominance over us. The six-member, right-wing majority on this secretive powerhouse now routinely vetoes efforts by workers, environmentalist, students, local officials, voters and all others who try to rein in corporate greed and abuses.

Appointed for lifetime terms, this autocratic tribune takes pride in being sealed off from democracy, even bragging that they make rulings without being influenced by special interests. But wait — in makeup and ideology, today's court majority is a special interest, for it consists of corporate and right-wing lawyers who've obtained their wealth and position by loyally serving corporate power. And far from now being isolated from moneyed elites, the judges regularly socialize with them and attend their closed-door political meetings.

There's even a special little club, called The Supreme Court Historical Society, that frequently reveals the cozy, symbiotic relationship that exists between today's judicial and corporate cliques. Such giants as Chevron, Goldman Sachs, AT&T and Home Depot pay millions of dollars to this clubby society, gaining notice by and the appreciation of the supremes. And, yes, these special interest gifts to the court are gratefully accepted, even when the corporations have active cases before the court, seeking favorable rulings from the very judges they're glad-handing at Society soirees.

Of course, the judges insist there's no conflict of interest, because this access to them is "open to all." Sure — all who can pay $25,000 and up to get inside! Yet the clueless judges wonder why their credibility is in the ditch. Remember, in America, The People are supreme! We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court. For reform, go to FixTheCourt.com.""

The GOP and their wealthy benefactor's orchestration of a partisan capture of the judiciary were always meant to be a means to control the government and get their way by doing an end-run around democracy.

"The Court has become a handmaiden to the corporate elites trying to increase their dominance over us."

Opinion | It's Time to Admit This Right-Wing U.S. Supreme Court Is a Corrupt, Autocratic Tribune | Common Dreams -- JIM HIGHTOWER https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/supreme-court-is-corrupt

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#SupremePartisans
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPIsTheRichsTool
#WantTheirSerfsBack
#GOPHatesDemocracy

Question: How many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg? Answer: Four — calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Likewise, calling a small group of partisan lawyers a "supreme" court doesn't make it one. There's nothing supreme about the six-pack of far-right-wing political activists who are presently soiling our people's ideals of justice by proclaiming their own antidemocratic biases to be the law of the land. On issues of economic fairness, women's rights, racial justice, corporate supremacy, environmental protection, theocratic rule and other fundamentals, these unelected, black-robed extremists are imposing an illegitimate elitist agenda on America that the people do not want and ultimately will not tolerate.

Indeed, the imperiousness of the six ruling judges has already caused the court's public approval rating to plummet, to a mere 38%, an historic low that ranks down there with former President Donald Trump, and threatens to go as low as Congress.

This has led to a flurry of officials attesting to the honesty and political impartiality of the reigning supremes. Unfortunately for the court, these ardent defenders were the six culprits themselves.

The "integrity of the judiciary is in my bones," pontificated Neil Gorsuch, who now stands accused of having lied to senators to win his lifetime appointment.

We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court.

"(We are not) a bunch of partisan hacks," wailed Amy Coney Barrett, a partisan extremist jammed onto the court in a partisan ploy by Trump in the last few hours of his presidency.

"Judges are not politicians," protested John Roberts, who became Chief Justice because he was a rabid political lawyer who pushed the Supreme Court in 2000 to reject the rights of voters and install George W. Bush as president.

As many of its own members privately admit, Congress has become a pay-to-play lawmaking casino — closed to commoners but offering full-service access to corporate powers.

But the Supreme Court is another government entity that's even more aloof from workaday people — and it has become a handmaiden to the corporate elites trying to increase their dominance over us. The six-member, right-wing majority on this secretive powerhouse now routinely vetoes efforts by workers, environmentalist, students, local officials, voters and all others who try to rein in corporate greed and abuses.

Appointed for lifetime terms, this autocratic tribune takes pride in being sealed off from democracy, even bragging that they make rulings without being influenced by special interests. But wait — in makeup and ideology, today's court majority is a special interest, for it consists of corporate and right-wing lawyers who've obtained their wealth and position by loyally serving corporate power. And far from now being isolated from moneyed elites, the judges regularly socialize with them and attend their closed-door political meetings.

There's even a special little club, called The Supreme Court Historical Society, that frequently reveals the cozy, symbiotic relationship that exists between today's judicial and corporate cliques. Such giants as Chevron, Goldman Sachs, AT&T and Home Depot pay millions of dollars to this clubby society, gaining notice by and the appreciation of the supremes. And, yes, these special interest gifts to the court are gratefully accepted, even when the corporations have active cases before the court, seeking favorable rulings from the very judges they're glad-handing at Society soirees.

Of course, the judges insist there's no conflict of interest, because this access to them is "open to all." Sure — all who can pay $25,000 and up to get inside! Yet the clueless judges wonder why their credibility is in the ditch. Remember, in America, The People are supreme! We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court. For reform, go to FixTheCourt.com.""

The GOP and their wealthy benefactor's orchestration of a partisan capture of the judiciary were always meant to be a means to control the government and get their way by doing an end-run around democracy.

"The Court has become a handmaiden to the corporate elites trying to increase their dominance over us."

Opinion | It's Time to Admit This Right-Wing U.S. Supreme Court Is a Corrupt, Autocratic Tribune | Common Dreams -- JIM HIGHTOWER https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/supreme-court-is-corrupt

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#SupremePartisans
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPIsTheRichsTool
#WantTheirSerfsBack
#GOPHatesDemocracy

Question: How many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg? Answer: Four — calling the tail a leg doesn't make it one.

Likewise, calling a small group of partisan lawyers a "supreme" court doesn't make it one. There's nothing supreme about the six-pack of far-right-wing political activists who are presently soiling our people's ideals of justice by proclaiming their own antidemocratic biases to be the law of the land. On issues of economic fairness, women's rights, racial justice, corporate supremacy, environmental protection, theocratic rule and other fundamentals, these unelected, black-robed extremists are imposing an illegitimate elitist agenda on America that the people do not want and ultimately will not tolerate.

Indeed, the imperiousness of the six ruling judges has already caused the court's public approval rating to plummet, to a mere 38%, an historic low that ranks down there with former President Donald Trump, and threatens to go as low as Congress.

This has led to a flurry of officials attesting to the honesty and political impartiality of the reigning supremes. Unfortunately for the court, these ardent defenders were the six culprits themselves.

The "integrity of the judiciary is in my bones," pontificated Neil Gorsuch, who now stands accused of having lied to senators to win his lifetime appointment.

We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court.

"(We are not) a bunch of partisan hacks," wailed Amy Coney Barrett, a partisan extremist jammed onto the court in a partisan ploy by Trump in the last few hours of his presidency.

"Judges are not politicians," protested John Roberts, who became Chief Justice because he was a rabid political lawyer who pushed the Supreme Court in 2000 to reject the rights of voters and install George W. Bush as president.

As many of its own members privately admit, Congress has become a pay-to-play lawmaking casino — closed to commoners but offering full-service access to corporate powers.

But the Supreme Court is another government entity that's even more aloof from workaday people — and it has become a handmaiden to the corporate elites trying to increase their dominance over us. The six-member, right-wing majority on this secretive powerhouse now routinely vetoes efforts by workers, environmentalist, students, local officials, voters and all others who try to rein in corporate greed and abuses.

Appointed for lifetime terms, this autocratic tribune takes pride in being sealed off from democracy, even bragging that they make rulings without being influenced by special interests. But wait — in makeup and ideology, today's court majority is a special interest, for it consists of corporate and right-wing lawyers who've obtained their wealth and position by loyally serving corporate power. And far from now being isolated from moneyed elites, the judges regularly socialize with them and attend their closed-door political meetings.

There's even a special little club, called The Supreme Court Historical Society, that frequently reveals the cozy, symbiotic relationship that exists between today's judicial and corporate cliques. Such giants as Chevron, Goldman Sachs, AT&T and Home Depot pay millions of dollars to this clubby society, gaining notice by and the appreciation of the supremes. And, yes, these special interest gifts to the court are gratefully accepted, even when the corporations have active cases before the court, seeking favorable rulings from the very judges they're glad-handing at Society soirees.

Of course, the judges insist there's no conflict of interest, because this access to them is "open to all." Sure — all who can pay $25,000 and up to get inside! Yet the clueless judges wonder why their credibility is in the ditch. Remember, in America, The People are supreme! We don't have to accept rule by an illegitimate court. For reform, go to FixTheCourt.com.""

The "conservative" justices act like partisans because that is what they always have been. They are part of a long-standing right-wing plan to use the judiciary as an end-run around democracy to enact their preferred policies, which they can't achieve through elections.

The Supreme Court's reputation is shattered thanks to its conservative justices https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/12/supreme-courts-reputation-shattered-thanks-conservative-justices/

#PartisanJudges
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#GOPVersionOfJustice
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy

"...Just to show you where their loyalties lie, Alito, Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch showed up at a gala dinner in November held by the Federalist Society, the right-wing legal group that vetted Trump’s judicial appointees, where they received a long ovation for their ruling overturning abortion rights.

Such disregard for the appearance of neutrality is possible because the Supreme Court doesn’t have any ethical guidelines – literally. Unlike any other judicial body in the U.S., the Court relies upon the integrity of the justices to police itself.

Look at where that’s gotten us.

No wonder the public’s trust in the Supreme Court is at historic lows. The conservative wing’s insistence on imposing its own view of society, even if that means overturning precedents, has made the Court seem like just another political player and not a group of legal giants. The attitude of Alito and company seems to be, “Who cares?” As long as they have the power, society can get lost.

As for the Court, it will take years to rebuild the reputation that the right’s disregard for basic ethics has destroyed. Meanwhile, you can count on the partying and praying to keep happening, despite the conflicts they may represent."

The "conservative" justices act like partisans because that is what they always have been. They are part of a long-standing right-wing plan to use the judiciary as an end-run around democracy to enact their preferred policies, which they can't achieve through elections.

The Supreme Court's reputation is shattered thanks to its conservative justices https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/12/supreme-courts-reputation-shattered-thanks-conservative-justices/

#PartisanJudges
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#GOPVersionOfJustice
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy

"...Just to show you where their loyalties lie, Alito, Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch showed up at a gala dinner in November held by the Federalist Society, the right-wing legal group that vetted Trump’s judicial appointees, where they received a long ovation for their ruling overturning abortion rights.

Such disregard for the appearance of neutrality is possible because the Supreme Court doesn’t have any ethical guidelines – literally. Unlike any other judicial body in the U.S., the Court relies upon the integrity of the justices to police itself.

Look at where that’s gotten us.

No wonder the public’s trust in the Supreme Court is at historic lows. The conservative wing’s insistence on imposing its own view of society, even if that means overturning precedents, has made the Court seem like just another political player and not a group of legal giants. The attitude of Alito and company seems to be, “Who cares?” As long as they have the power, society can get lost.

As for the Court, it will take years to rebuild the reputation that the right’s disregard for basic ethics has destroyed. Meanwhile, you can count on the partying and praying to keep happening, despite the conflicts they may represent."

The "conservative" justices act like partisans because that is what they always have been. They are part of a long-standing right-wing plan to use the judiciary as an end-run around democracy to enact their preferred policies, which they can't achieve through elections.

The Supreme Court's reputation is shattered thanks to its conservative justices https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/12/supreme-courts-reputation-shattered-thanks-conservative-justices/

#PartisanJudges
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#GOPVersionOfJustice
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy

"...Just to show you where their loyalties lie, Alito, Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch showed up at a gala dinner in November held by the Federalist Society, the right-wing legal group that vetted Trump’s judicial appointees, where they received a long ovation for their ruling overturning abortion rights.

Such disregard for the appearance of neutrality is possible because the Supreme Court doesn’t have any ethical guidelines – literally. Unlike any other judicial body in the U.S., the Court relies upon the integrity of the justices to police itself.

Look at where that’s gotten us.

No wonder the public’s trust in the Supreme Court is at historic lows. The conservative wing’s insistence on imposing its own view of society, even if that means overturning precedents, has made the Court seem like just another political player and not a group of legal giants. The attitude of Alito and company seems to be, “Who cares?” As long as they have the power, society can get lost.

As for the Court, it will take years to rebuild the reputation that the right’s disregard for basic ethics has destroyed. Meanwhile, you can count on the partying and praying to keep happening, despite the conflicts they may represent."

The "conservative" justices act like partisans because that is what they always have been. They are part of a long-standing right-wing plan to use the judiciary as an end-run around democracy to enact their preferred policies, which they can't achieve through elections.

The Supreme Court's reputation is shattered thanks to its conservative justices https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/12/supreme-courts-reputation-shattered-thanks-conservative-justices/

#PartisanJudges
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#GOPVersionOfJustice
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy

"...Just to show you where their loyalties lie, Alito, Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch showed up at a gala dinner in November held by the Federalist Society, the right-wing legal group that vetted Trump’s judicial appointees, where they received a long ovation for their ruling overturning abortion rights.

Such disregard for the appearance of neutrality is possible because the Supreme Court doesn’t have any ethical guidelines – literally. Unlike any other judicial body in the U.S., the Court relies upon the integrity of the justices to police itself.

Look at where that’s gotten us.

No wonder the public’s trust in the Supreme Court is at historic lows. The conservative wing’s insistence on imposing its own view of society, even if that means overturning precedents, has made the Court seem like just another political player and not a group of legal giants. The attitude of Alito and company seems to be, “Who cares?” As long as they have the power, society can get lost.

As for the Court, it will take years to rebuild the reputation that the right’s disregard for basic ethics has destroyed. Meanwhile, you can count on the partying and praying to keep happening, despite the conflicts they may represent."

The "conservative" justices act like partisans because that is what they always have been. They are part of a long-standing right-wing plan to use the judiciary as an end-run around democracy to enact their preferred policies, which they can't achieve through elections.

The Supreme Court's reputation is shattered thanks to its conservative justices https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/12/supreme-courts-reputation-shattered-thanks-conservative-justices/

#PartisanJudges
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#GOPVersionOfJustice
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy

"...Just to show you where their loyalties lie, Alito, Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch showed up at a gala dinner in November held by the Federalist Society, the right-wing legal group that vetted Trump’s judicial appointees, where they received a long ovation for their ruling overturning abortion rights.

Such disregard for the appearance of neutrality is possible because the Supreme Court doesn’t have any ethical guidelines – literally. Unlike any other judicial body in the U.S., the Court relies upon the integrity of the justices to police itself.

Look at where that’s gotten us.

No wonder the public’s trust in the Supreme Court is at historic lows. The conservative wing’s insistence on imposing its own view of society, even if that means overturning precedents, has made the Court seem like just another political player and not a group of legal giants. The attitude of Alito and company seems to be, “Who cares?” As long as they have the power, society can get lost.

As for the Court, it will take years to rebuild the reputation that the right’s disregard for basic ethics has destroyed. Meanwhile, you can count on the partying and praying to keep happening, despite the conflicts they may represent."

“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” The wealthy have been owning media for generations to be able to control the country, make more money and undermine democracy. We can't have a democracy without a truly free press!

Project Censored, Part 1: Billionaire Press Domination - The American Prospect https://prospect.org/power/project-censored-part-1-billionaire-press-domination/

#WantTheirSerfsBack
#RichWantAllTheMoney&Control
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary

"5) Dark Money Interference in U.S. Politics Undermines Democracy
PC-5.jpg
The same group of conservative dark money organizations that opposed President Joe Biden’s

Supreme Court nomination — Judicial Crisis Network [JCN], The 85 Fund and their affiliated groups — also funded entities that played a role in the Jan. 6 insurrection, according to a report by the watchdog group Accountable.US. They’re closely linked to Leonard Leo, co-chair of the Federalist Society, with money coming from Donors Trust (a dark-money group backed by the Koch network) and the Bradley Foundation.

“These dark money groups not only funded Leo’s network of organizations to the sum of over $52 million in 2020, but also funded entities in 2020 that played a role in the insurrection to the sum of over $37 million,” Accountable.US reported.

While there has been coverage of dark money spending on Supreme Court nominations, Igor Derysh at Salon was alone in reporting this — the related involvement in Jan. 6.

Just one group, JCN, spent $2.5 million “before Biden even named his nominee” Ketanji Brown Jackson, Derysh reported, “accusing Biden of caving in to leftists by promising a ‘Supreme Court nominee who will be a liberal activist.’" On the other hand, “JCN spent tens of millions helping to confirm Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, according to Open Secrets, and launched a $25 million effort to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett just weeks before the 2020 election,” he reported.

But more disturbingly, “Donors Trust has funneled more than $28 million to groups that pushed election lies or in some way funded the rally ahead of the Capitol riot,” while “Members of the Federalist Society played key roles in Donald Trump's attempts to overturn the election,” including attorney John Eastman, architect of Trump’s plan to get Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election, senators Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who led the objections to the certification of Trump's loss after the riot, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed a lawsuit to throw out election results in key states, effectively overturning Biden's victory. In addition, 13 of the 17 other Republican attorneys general who joined Paxton's suit were also Federalist Society members.

“It should worry us all that the groups leading the fight against Biden’s historic nomination of Judge Jackson to the Supreme Court are tied to the Jan. 6 insurrection and efforts to undermine confidence in the 2020 election,” Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, told Salon.

“The influence of dark money — political spending by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors — presents a major challenge to the swift functioning of the judicial nomination and confirmation process, and the US government as a whole,” Project Censored noted. “[D]ark money deeply influences political decisions in favor of select individuals’ or groups’ agendas rather than in support of the public’s best interests.”

Rightwing dark money’s role in fighting Judge Jackson’s nomination and confirmation process was highlighted by Business Insider in February 2022, along with op-eds in both the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post covered the discussion of dark money during Judge Jackson’s confirmation hearings, and a March 2022 Mother Jones report. “However,” Project Censored noted, “none of the articles featured in the corporate press covered dark money supporting Trump’s Big Lie, the impact such funding had on promoting and reinforcing anti-democratic ideology, or the ramifications of how such dark money spending erodes public trust in government and the election process.” "

Yet another example of the corrupt and compromised nature of the current, highly partisan, right-wing stacked court. Just as the GOP is the willing servant of corporations and the wealthy, it is becoming increasingly clear that the GOP-stacked supreme court is equally willing to bend over backward to serve the interests of the wealthy and large corporations. The need for reform grows ever more urgent!!

"Why are these conflicts allowed?" Corporate giving to SCOTUS-linked group sparks blowback | Salon.com https://www.salon.com/2023/01/01/why-are-these-conflicts-allowed-corporate-giving-to-scotus-linked-group-sparks-blowback_partner/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#Pay2Play
#CorruptSupremeCourt
#ReformSupremeCourt

"Alarm and concern were expressed Saturday in response to new reporting about a charitable group with close ties to the U.S. Supreme Court that has been soliciting and accepting donations from corporate interests and far-right activists with cases before the court.

The New York Times exposé focused on the activities and fundraising of the Supreme Court Historical Society, a nonprofit that claims its mission is "dedicated to the collection and preservation" of the court's history.

While the group refused to disclose its donors to the Times, reporters from the newspaper determined that much of the funding came from powerful companies like Chevron, Goldman Sachs, Time Warner and Facebook as well as anti-abortion activists like the Rev. Rob Schenck.

According to the newspaper:

The society has raised more than $23 million over the last two decades. Because of its nonprofit status, it does not have to publicly disclose its donors — and declined when asked to do so. But The New York Times was able to identify the sources behind more than $10.7 million raised since 2003, the first year for which relevant records were available.

At least $6.4 million — or 60 percent — came from corporations, special interest groups, or lawyers and firms that argued cases before the court, according to an analysis of archived historical society newsletters and publicly available records that detail grants given to the society by foundations. Of that, at least $4.7 million came from individuals or entities in years when they had a pending interest in a federal court case on appeal or at the high court, records show.

In the case of Chevron, the oil giant actively gave to the society even as it had a pending climate litigation working its way through the court.

In response to the new revelations, public interest attorney Steven Donzinger, who was himself targeted by Chevron for his work aimed at holding the company to account for its polluting activities in Ecuador, said the implications were "horrifying."

"Why are these conflicts allowed?" asked Donzinger.

Others quoted by the Times said the effort by people like Schenck, who admits to using the charitable group as a way to get other anti-abortion activists closer to the justices, creates a clear conflict of interest.

Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor who once served as solicitor general in the Reagan administration and counts himself a donor to the Historical Society, told the newspaper he was so "horrified" by Schenck's behavior that he may no longer give.

"It's disgusting," Fried said. "Many of the people who contribute have the same reasons I do. You go to a cocktail party and support a good cause. But it turns out that for some people it's not that innocent."

While the Times notes that the Historical Society is "ostensibly independent of the judicial branch of government," the reality is that "the two are inextricably intertwined," with court justices serving as chair of the board and hosting gala events where exclusive access is reportedly part of the allure.

The left-leaning Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said the reporting raises "significant questions" about the group which has "raked in millions — a significant chunk of it from groups with cases before the Court" over the last two decades.

Fix the Court, which acts as a watchdog organization for the Supreme Court, said the justification for the Historical Society's existence just doesn't hold water.

Gabe Roth, the group's executive director, told the Times that if money was an issue for funding such a project it would be the best solution — one free of ethical concerns — for Congress to simply appropriate the money needed to maintain the history of the Supreme Court."

The right-wing partisans on the supreme court are attempting to steal the power to control the direction of the country. The least we can do is use the few actions at our disposal that could help illuminate the partisan corruption that underlies their actions!!

'Let’s do that!' Internet cheers Republican warning that Supreme Court Justices' tax returns could go public - Raw Story - Celebrating 18 Years of Independent Journalism https://www.rawstory.com/lets-do-that-internet-cheers-republican-warning-that-supreme-court-justices-tax-returns-could-go-public-2658992856/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt
#GOPLovesPower #GOPHatesDemocracy

"On social media, given the historic unpopularity of this Supreme Court, many applauded the idea of its justices having their tax returns made public – something that likely would never happen

“Yes!” declared Carnegie Mellon University professor Uju Anya. “Tell us who bought and paid for the Supreme Court Justices. Please and thank you.”

“Great!” exclaimed Mother Jones editor-in-chief Clara Jeffery. “Let’s do that!”

READ MORE: ‘It’s the Transgender, LGBTQ’: Secret Recording Reveals Superintendent Telling School Librarians ‘Pull Books Off Shelves’

Swedish economist and former Atlantic Council Senior Fellow Anders Åslund criticized Brady.

“Shameful! What the US lacks most of all is transparency. It should start with tax returns and be followed by campaign financing, now often dark money. Politicians who advocate financial secrecy effectively advocate corruption.”

Georgetown Law professor Josh Chafetz said, “Hadn’t even thought of this — that would be great!”

“Congress has had this authority for a long time,” noted retired journalist Dan Murphy. “If legitimate concerns arise that a member of the Supreme Court is abusing the office to enrich him or herself, as there are in the case of Trump, getting those returns would also be a good thing.”

“And that’s a bad thing?” mocked U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA).

“Don’t tempt me with a good time…” mocked journalist Walker Bragman, a theme repeated by dozens of other Twitter users"

Part 2
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

Judge James Graves dissented on the grounds that his colleagues erred in extending the major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Noting that the Procurement Act had frequently been used in social policymaking, Graves observed that Biden’s order was in line with the act’s first use in 1965: implementing anti-discrimination provisions forbidding contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin—a use which the 5th Circuit subsequently upheld. Graves also compared Biden’s order to a second prior Procurement Act case requiring federal contractors to electronically verify their employees were authorized to work in the U.S. Like the e-verify requirement, Graves asserted, Biden’s order requiring federal contractors to verify employees had COVID vaccinations did not govern employees’ conduct but merely imposed requirements on employers.

Finally, Graves observed that Biden’s executive order mirrored current “mainstream” policies of private employers requiring employee vaccinations, analogizing the mandate to other health measures like regulating smoking at federal workplaces. “Just like requiring vaccine mandates,” he wrote, “the reason to prohibit smoking while at a federal facility is to prevent dangerous disease from spreading, whether it be COVID or harms from secondhand smoke, which hampers the economy and efficiency of federal contractors’ operations.”

As Graves noted, the president “does not suffer from the same lack of political accountability that agencies may, particularly when the President acts on a question of economic and political significance.” Unlike a federal agency, the president is elected and therefore accountable to U.S. citizens—a core difference in whether it is appropriate to extend that major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Moreover, the 5th Circuit majority did not—and could not—cite to another case where the major questions doctrine had been extended to a presidential executive order. That federal courts had never ventured into this forbidding territory, Graves suggested, is tantamount to a default understanding that the doctrine simply does not extend to that context.

Graves is right. The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy. Old doctrines can be used for new tricks—but we need to be very careful in such contexts, lest aggressive judicial incursions into executive policymaking powers undermine settled legal doctrine. The overextension of the major questions doctrine is also symptomatic of other recent attempts to shift power from the executive to the judicial branch. The 5th Circuit opinion was issued at a time when courts are making headlines by using settled doctrine in new ways, seemingly to impose ideological objectives; witness, for example, the rejection of stare decisis in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. These acts put courts—and the legal principles they interpret and enforce—on increasingly shaky ground, and threaten to undermine fragile public trust. We must remember that federal judges, like federal agencies, are also unelected. But unlike bureaucrats, judges serve for life.

It should make us uneasy when federal courts apply well-settled doctrine in novel contexts. As it is increasingly forced to explore territories unknown, U.S. law had best meander cautiously along, in the tradition of its pioneer forbears, cautiously guiding the judicial wagon and its precious cargo along well-worn grooves. Applying doctrines in radically different contexts can be irresponsible judicial activism—the equivalent of sending that wagon hurtling off a cliff, to the peril of all."

Part 2
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

Judge James Graves dissented on the grounds that his colleagues erred in extending the major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Noting that the Procurement Act had frequently been used in social policymaking, Graves observed that Biden’s order was in line with the act’s first use in 1965: implementing anti-discrimination provisions forbidding contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin—a use which the 5th Circuit subsequently upheld. Graves also compared Biden’s order to a second prior Procurement Act case requiring federal contractors to electronically verify their employees were authorized to work in the U.S. Like the e-verify requirement, Graves asserted, Biden’s order requiring federal contractors to verify employees had COVID vaccinations did not govern employees’ conduct but merely imposed requirements on employers.

Finally, Graves observed that Biden’s executive order mirrored current “mainstream” policies of private employers requiring employee vaccinations, analogizing the mandate to other health measures like regulating smoking at federal workplaces. “Just like requiring vaccine mandates,” he wrote, “the reason to prohibit smoking while at a federal facility is to prevent dangerous disease from spreading, whether it be COVID or harms from secondhand smoke, which hampers the economy and efficiency of federal contractors’ operations.”

As Graves noted, the president “does not suffer from the same lack of political accountability that agencies may, particularly when the President acts on a question of economic and political significance.” Unlike a federal agency, the president is elected and therefore accountable to U.S. citizens—a core difference in whether it is appropriate to extend that major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Moreover, the 5th Circuit majority did not—and could not—cite to another case where the major questions doctrine had been extended to a presidential executive order. That federal courts had never ventured into this forbidding territory, Graves suggested, is tantamount to a default understanding that the doctrine simply does not extend to that context.

Graves is right. The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy. Old doctrines can be used for new tricks—but we need to be very careful in such contexts, lest aggressive judicial incursions into executive policymaking powers undermine settled legal doctrine. The overextension of the major questions doctrine is also symptomatic of other recent attempts to shift power from the executive to the judicial branch. The 5th Circuit opinion was issued at a time when courts are making headlines by using settled doctrine in new ways, seemingly to impose ideological objectives; witness, for example, the rejection of stare decisis in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. These acts put courts—and the legal principles they interpret and enforce—on increasingly shaky ground, and threaten to undermine fragile public trust. We must remember that federal judges, like federal agencies, are also unelected. But unlike bureaucrats, judges serve for life.

It should make us uneasy when federal courts apply well-settled doctrine in novel contexts. As it is increasingly forced to explore territories unknown, U.S. law had best meander cautiously along, in the tradition of its pioneer forbears, cautiously guiding the judicial wagon and its precious cargo along well-worn grooves. Applying doctrines in radically different contexts can be irresponsible judicial activism—the equivalent of sending that wagon hurtling off a cliff, to the peril of all."

Part 2
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

Judge James Graves dissented on the grounds that his colleagues erred in extending the major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Noting that the Procurement Act had frequently been used in social policymaking, Graves observed that Biden’s order was in line with the act’s first use in 1965: implementing anti-discrimination provisions forbidding contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin—a use which the 5th Circuit subsequently upheld. Graves also compared Biden’s order to a second prior Procurement Act case requiring federal contractors to electronically verify their employees were authorized to work in the U.S. Like the e-verify requirement, Graves asserted, Biden’s order requiring federal contractors to verify employees had COVID vaccinations did not govern employees’ conduct but merely imposed requirements on employers.

Finally, Graves observed that Biden’s executive order mirrored current “mainstream” policies of private employers requiring employee vaccinations, analogizing the mandate to other health measures like regulating smoking at federal workplaces. “Just like requiring vaccine mandates,” he wrote, “the reason to prohibit smoking while at a federal facility is to prevent dangerous disease from spreading, whether it be COVID or harms from secondhand smoke, which hampers the economy and efficiency of federal contractors’ operations.”

As Graves noted, the president “does not suffer from the same lack of political accountability that agencies may, particularly when the President acts on a question of economic and political significance.” Unlike a federal agency, the president is elected and therefore accountable to U.S. citizens—a core difference in whether it is appropriate to extend that major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Moreover, the 5th Circuit majority did not—and could not—cite to another case where the major questions doctrine had been extended to a presidential executive order. That federal courts had never ventured into this forbidding territory, Graves suggested, is tantamount to a default understanding that the doctrine simply does not extend to that context.

Graves is right. The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy. Old doctrines can be used for new tricks—but we need to be very careful in such contexts, lest aggressive judicial incursions into executive policymaking powers undermine settled legal doctrine. The overextension of the major questions doctrine is also symptomatic of other recent attempts to shift power from the executive to the judicial branch. The 5th Circuit opinion was issued at a time when courts are making headlines by using settled doctrine in new ways, seemingly to impose ideological objectives; witness, for example, the rejection of stare decisis in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. These acts put courts—and the legal principles they interpret and enforce—on increasingly shaky ground, and threaten to undermine fragile public trust. We must remember that federal judges, like federal agencies, are also unelected. But unlike bureaucrats, judges serve for life.

It should make us uneasy when federal courts apply well-settled doctrine in novel contexts. As it is increasingly forced to explore territories unknown, U.S. law had best meander cautiously along, in the tradition of its pioneer forbears, cautiously guiding the judicial wagon and its precious cargo along well-worn grooves. Applying doctrines in radically different contexts can be irresponsible judicial activism—the equivalent of sending that wagon hurtling off a cliff, to the peril of all."

Part 2
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

Judge James Graves dissented on the grounds that his colleagues erred in extending the major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Noting that the Procurement Act had frequently been used in social policymaking, Graves observed that Biden’s order was in line with the act’s first use in 1965: implementing anti-discrimination provisions forbidding contractors from discriminating on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin—a use which the 5th Circuit subsequently upheld. Graves also compared Biden’s order to a second prior Procurement Act case requiring federal contractors to electronically verify their employees were authorized to work in the U.S. Like the e-verify requirement, Graves asserted, Biden’s order requiring federal contractors to verify employees had COVID vaccinations did not govern employees’ conduct but merely imposed requirements on employers.

Finally, Graves observed that Biden’s executive order mirrored current “mainstream” policies of private employers requiring employee vaccinations, analogizing the mandate to other health measures like regulating smoking at federal workplaces. “Just like requiring vaccine mandates,” he wrote, “the reason to prohibit smoking while at a federal facility is to prevent dangerous disease from spreading, whether it be COVID or harms from secondhand smoke, which hampers the economy and efficiency of federal contractors’ operations.”

As Graves noted, the president “does not suffer from the same lack of political accountability that agencies may, particularly when the President acts on a question of economic and political significance.” Unlike a federal agency, the president is elected and therefore accountable to U.S. citizens—a core difference in whether it is appropriate to extend that major questions doctrine to presidential executive orders. Moreover, the 5th Circuit majority did not—and could not—cite to another case where the major questions doctrine had been extended to a presidential executive order. That federal courts had never ventured into this forbidding territory, Graves suggested, is tantamount to a default understanding that the doctrine simply does not extend to that context.

Graves is right. The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy. Old doctrines can be used for new tricks—but we need to be very careful in such contexts, lest aggressive judicial incursions into executive policymaking powers undermine settled legal doctrine. The overextension of the major questions doctrine is also symptomatic of other recent attempts to shift power from the executive to the judicial branch. The 5th Circuit opinion was issued at a time when courts are making headlines by using settled doctrine in new ways, seemingly to impose ideological objectives; witness, for example, the rejection of stare decisis in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. These acts put courts—and the legal principles they interpret and enforce—on increasingly shaky ground, and threaten to undermine fragile public trust. We must remember that federal judges, like federal agencies, are also unelected. But unlike bureaucrats, judges serve for life.

It should make us uneasy when federal courts apply well-settled doctrine in novel contexts. As it is increasingly forced to explore territories unknown, U.S. law had best meander cautiously along, in the tradition of its pioneer forbears, cautiously guiding the judicial wagon and its precious cargo along well-worn grooves. Applying doctrines in radically different contexts can be irresponsible judicial activism—the equivalent of sending that wagon hurtling off a cliff, to the peril of all."

Part 1
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

"On Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled 2–1 that President Joe Biden lacked authority to issue an executive order imposing a requirement on companies with whom the U.S. government contracts that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, affecting thousands of companies and up to 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.

Responding to the demands of Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi, the 5th Circuit kept in place a ban on the implementation of Biden’s executive order on the grounds that the president lacked authority to impose this requirement, and that the order violated an obscure-sounding administrative law principle: the major questions doctrine. Monday’s ruling, Louisiana v. Biden, has far-reaching consequences for federal contractors, but its legal substance also has stark and serious consequences for American law.

Federal agencies make and implement rules under authority that Congress has granted under statute. When a statute is ambiguous, courts have traditionally deferred to the agency’s interpretation of it, since agencies have much more expertise than federal judges. Courts used to invoke the major questions doctrine infrequently, as a narrow exception for extraordinary cases. But in recent years, federal courts’ invocations of this doctrine have vastly increased. They are increasingly unwilling to defer to agency interpretations on issues involving substantial “economic or political significance.”
...
But in Louisiana v. Biden, the 5th Circuit extended this doctrine to the president himself. The case involves an executive order that Biden issued in 2021 that would require the federal government to include a clause in contracts with companies requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy.
The Justice Department argued that Biden issued this order under his authority pursuant to the Presidential Procurement Act, in his role as the purchaser of services, to promote economy and efficiency. It also analogized this contracting requirement to the vaccine mandate imposed on most hospital workers—a rule that the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, joined by Judge Don Willett—both Donald Trump nominees—rejected these arguments in the majority opinion. Engelhardt reasoned that under the major questions doctrine, Congress had not clearly authorized Biden’s vaccine mandate. Although the major questions doctrine had never been extended beyond the agency context to encompass presidential policymaking under executive orders, the majority defended this novel application for two reasons: First, the Supreme Court had never explicitly limited the major questions doctrine to agencies rather than the president; and second, the president is responsible for the executive branch’s actions under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that delegations to agencies and the president should be treated the same. Engelhardt also stated that implementing Biden’s order would set precedent penetrating beyond the contractor workplace into the realm of private health, affecting employee behavior...."

Part 1
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

"On Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled 2–1 that President Joe Biden lacked authority to issue an executive order imposing a requirement on companies with whom the U.S. government contracts that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, affecting thousands of companies and up to 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.

Responding to the demands of Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi, the 5th Circuit kept in place a ban on the implementation of Biden’s executive order on the grounds that the president lacked authority to impose this requirement, and that the order violated an obscure-sounding administrative law principle: the major questions doctrine. Monday’s ruling, Louisiana v. Biden, has far-reaching consequences for federal contractors, but its legal substance also has stark and serious consequences for American law.

Federal agencies make and implement rules under authority that Congress has granted under statute. When a statute is ambiguous, courts have traditionally deferred to the agency’s interpretation of it, since agencies have much more expertise than federal judges. Courts used to invoke the major questions doctrine infrequently, as a narrow exception for extraordinary cases. But in recent years, federal courts’ invocations of this doctrine have vastly increased. They are increasingly unwilling to defer to agency interpretations on issues involving substantial “economic or political significance.”
...
But in Louisiana v. Biden, the 5th Circuit extended this doctrine to the president himself. The case involves an executive order that Biden issued in 2021 that would require the federal government to include a clause in contracts with companies requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy.
The Justice Department argued that Biden issued this order under his authority pursuant to the Presidential Procurement Act, in his role as the purchaser of services, to promote economy and efficiency. It also analogized this contracting requirement to the vaccine mandate imposed on most hospital workers—a rule that the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, joined by Judge Don Willett—both Donald Trump nominees—rejected these arguments in the majority opinion. Engelhardt reasoned that under the major questions doctrine, Congress had not clearly authorized Biden’s vaccine mandate. Although the major questions doctrine had never been extended beyond the agency context to encompass presidential policymaking under executive orders, the majority defended this novel application for two reasons: First, the Supreme Court had never explicitly limited the major questions doctrine to agencies rather than the president; and second, the president is responsible for the executive branch’s actions under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that delegations to agencies and the president should be treated the same. Engelhardt also stated that implementing Biden’s order would set precedent penetrating beyond the contractor workplace into the realm of private health, affecting employee behavior...."

Part 1
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

"On Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled 2–1 that President Joe Biden lacked authority to issue an executive order imposing a requirement on companies with whom the U.S. government contracts that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, affecting thousands of companies and up to 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.

Responding to the demands of Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi, the 5th Circuit kept in place a ban on the implementation of Biden’s executive order on the grounds that the president lacked authority to impose this requirement, and that the order violated an obscure-sounding administrative law principle: the major questions doctrine. Monday’s ruling, Louisiana v. Biden, has far-reaching consequences for federal contractors, but its legal substance also has stark and serious consequences for American law.

Federal agencies make and implement rules under authority that Congress has granted under statute. When a statute is ambiguous, courts have traditionally deferred to the agency’s interpretation of it, since agencies have much more expertise than federal judges. Courts used to invoke the major questions doctrine infrequently, as a narrow exception for extraordinary cases. But in recent years, federal courts’ invocations of this doctrine have vastly increased. They are increasingly unwilling to defer to agency interpretations on issues involving substantial “economic or political significance.”
...
But in Louisiana v. Biden, the 5th Circuit extended this doctrine to the president himself. The case involves an executive order that Biden issued in 2021 that would require the federal government to include a clause in contracts with companies requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy.
The Justice Department argued that Biden issued this order under his authority pursuant to the Presidential Procurement Act, in his role as the purchaser of services, to promote economy and efficiency. It also analogized this contracting requirement to the vaccine mandate imposed on most hospital workers—a rule that the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, joined by Judge Don Willett—both Donald Trump nominees—rejected these arguments in the majority opinion. Engelhardt reasoned that under the major questions doctrine, Congress had not clearly authorized Biden’s vaccine mandate. Although the major questions doctrine had never been extended beyond the agency context to encompass presidential policymaking under executive orders, the majority defended this novel application for two reasons: First, the Supreme Court had never explicitly limited the major questions doctrine to agencies rather than the president; and second, the president is responsible for the executive branch’s actions under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that delegations to agencies and the president should be treated the same. Engelhardt also stated that implementing Biden’s order would set precedent penetrating beyond the contractor workplace into the realm of private health, affecting employee behavior...."

Part 1
Increasingly the GOP's goal in capturing the supreme court and the judiciary is becoming clear as they use the judiciary to end run around democracy, grab power and impose their partisan policy preferences without the voters consent. The GOP doesn't need democracy to steal power if they can use the unelected judiciary to control US policy.

Biden COVID response: 5th Circuit blocks vaccine mandate for federal contractors. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/12/biden-vaccine-mandate-federal-contractors-fifth-circuit.html

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#JudicialPowerGrab
#JudicialEndRunAroundDemocracy
#GOPUsingJudiciarytoSkirtDemocracy
#PartisanJudges
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPLovesPower

"On Monday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled 2–1 that President Joe Biden lacked authority to issue an executive order imposing a requirement on companies with whom the U.S. government contracts that employees be vaccinated against COVID-19, affecting thousands of companies and up to 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.

Responding to the demands of Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi, the 5th Circuit kept in place a ban on the implementation of Biden’s executive order on the grounds that the president lacked authority to impose this requirement, and that the order violated an obscure-sounding administrative law principle: the major questions doctrine. Monday’s ruling, Louisiana v. Biden, has far-reaching consequences for federal contractors, but its legal substance also has stark and serious consequences for American law.

Federal agencies make and implement rules under authority that Congress has granted under statute. When a statute is ambiguous, courts have traditionally deferred to the agency’s interpretation of it, since agencies have much more expertise than federal judges. Courts used to invoke the major questions doctrine infrequently, as a narrow exception for extraordinary cases. But in recent years, federal courts’ invocations of this doctrine have vastly increased. They are increasingly unwilling to defer to agency interpretations on issues involving substantial “economic or political significance.”
...
But in Louisiana v. Biden, the 5th Circuit extended this doctrine to the president himself. The case involves an executive order that Biden issued in 2021 that would require the federal government to include a clause in contracts with companies requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The 5th Circuit’s expansion of the major questions doctrine is unwarranted, unnecessary, and dangerous to democracy.
The Justice Department argued that Biden issued this order under his authority pursuant to the Presidential Procurement Act, in his role as the purchaser of services, to promote economy and efficiency. It also analogized this contracting requirement to the vaccine mandate imposed on most hospital workers—a rule that the Supreme Court upheld earlier this year.

Judge Kurt Engelhardt, joined by Judge Don Willett—both Donald Trump nominees—rejected these arguments in the majority opinion. Engelhardt reasoned that under the major questions doctrine, Congress had not clearly authorized Biden’s vaccine mandate. Although the major questions doctrine had never been extended beyond the agency context to encompass presidential policymaking under executive orders, the majority defended this novel application for two reasons: First, the Supreme Court had never explicitly limited the major questions doctrine to agencies rather than the president; and second, the president is responsible for the executive branch’s actions under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, suggesting that delegations to agencies and the president should be treated the same. Engelhardt also stated that implementing Biden’s order would set precedent penetrating beyond the contractor workplace into the realm of private health, affecting employee behavior...."

GOP conspires to undermine democracy via the judiciary by stacking the courts with GOP partisans!

While advising Trump on judges, Conway sold her business to a firm with ties to judicial activist Leonard Leo https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/20/trump-conway-leonard-leo-00074690

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#GOPCorrupt
#GOPLovesPower
#GOPHatesDemocracy
#GOPIsTheRichsBitch

"Longtime judicial activist Leonard Leo appears to have helped facilitate the sale of former White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway’s polling company in 2017 — as she was playing a key role in advocating for Leo’s handpicked list of Supreme Court candidates
...
The transaction came at a critical moment for Conway — shortly after her ownership of The Polling Company had come under scrutiny from a congressional oversight committee for potential “conflicts of interest,” likely creating pressure to unload it even though its value was unclear because she was its biggest asset and committed to her White House job.
...
It’s the latest example of how Leo has used his network to secure and protect allies at the highest levels of government to successfully advance his decadeslong agenda of shifting the Supreme Court rightward for the next generation.
...
If Leo helped facilitate the transaction, it could violate ethics laws designed to prevent executive branch employees from obtaining benefits from people with whom they interact in their official capacities, said Bruce Freed, president of the nonpartisan Center for Political Accountability, which tracks corporate spending in politics. Federal ethics laws prohibit executive branch employees from using their positions for private personal gain and from accepting gifts.

“It really shows Kellyanne as a vehicle for Leo, the leading role Leo has played and how Trump became his instrument,” said Freed, after reviewing the documents.
...
The financial deal between Conway and CRC adds to an emerging picture of the extent to which groups associated with Leo — who now controls more than $1.6 billion in conservative donor funds — interacted with key players in the conservative movement’s efforts to reshape the judiciary. The New York Times first reported the windfall donation to a Leo-controlled group, among the largest single contributions ever to a political nonprofit.

Leo served on the board of a group led by Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, and he and the Thomases have maintained a longstanding friendship. Leo’s network has been among the most prolific forces behind the new conservative majority, successfully advocating to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett as well as to block former President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland.
...
Yet she lobbied inside the White House for the specific conservative justices Leo preferred as part of his decadeslong agenda of shifting the balance of the court sharply rightward, according to news reports, her recent memoir and other public records.
...
During the same time frame Conway was a senior adviser to Trump, she was under pressure to sell The Polling Company. In a May 9 statement, then-House Oversight Committee Chair Elijah Cummings, a Democrat from Maryland, said the White House had not produced evidence of a certificate of divestiture. The sale to CRC a few months later reduced political pressure on her.

Ethics specialists pointed to the possible involvement of BH Fund as a key question looming over the sale.
...
Brett Kappel, a lobbying and government ethics counsel at the Harmon Curran law firm in Washington who also reviewed the documents at POLITICO’s request, said the transactions appear to be connected.

“Based on the available documentation and the timing of the filings, it certainly appears as though these transactions are related,” said Kappel, who has represented candidates and political committees on both sides of the aisle. Still, Kappel cautioned it may depend on whether Conway was advising the president on court nominations at the same moment she sold to constitute a clear violation of ethics rules.

Kyle Herrig, president of Accountable.US, a non-partisan progressive group that investigates corporate influence in politics and alerted POLITICO to the financial records and timestamps, said it was concerned about whether the Leo-affiliated groups rewarded Conway for her advocacy by purchasing her business at a time when its value was unclear.

It also raises “serious concerns” about how Leo will use his new, “no-strings-attached” $1.6 billion windfall, arranged through a series of transactions that appear to have avoided tax liabilities, to influence the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, said Herrig."

Part 2: This is all part of the wealthy/corporate plot to control the government so they can't be restrained, regulated, fined, taxed, etc.. Oh, and they definitely want their serfs back!!

'Judicial supremacy': How the Supreme Court usurped the other two branches of government - Alternet.org https://www.alternet.org/judicial-supremacy-supreme-court-usurped/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt
#PartisanJudges
#WantTheirSerfsBack

"Another current Supreme Court case that worries Wehle is Moore v. Harper, which deals with partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and a far-right legal idea known as the independent state legislature (ISL) theory. The ISL, in its most severe form, argues that only state legislatures have a right govern elections at the state level — not governors, not state supreme courts, not judges.

“The implications of Moore are even graver than those in Milligan,” Wehle warns. “The legislators are arguing that under the U.S. Constitution, only state legislatures or Congress can decide the rules governing federal elections — state courts and state constitutions are meaningless. This independent state legislature theory was repeatedly raised with no success by Trump and his supporters seeking to overturn the election in 2020.”

Wehle continues, “But what was unthinkable then — a ruling that takes elections away from voters by mandating as a matter of constitutional law that state legislatures have unfettered power to ultimately decide them — is very real now…. If the independent state legislature theory nonetheless carries the day, it would mean that a state legislature could violate the very state constitution that created it. Voters would, once again, be the losers at the Supreme Court — despite multiple laws designed to protect them.”

Wehle wraps up her article by arguing that today’s Supreme Court is more radical than conservative.

“Alas, the conservative justices on this Court have already shown their hand,” Wehle writes. “They don’t care about precedent, let alone intellectual integrity. As a result, Americans may be in for a rude awakening. Indeed, perhaps it’s time to retire the label ‘conservative’ when referring to the majority of this Court. Each term gives further evidence of its decidedly unconstrained unconservatism. And the future of our precious Constitution is in their hands.”"

Part 1 This is all part of the wealthy/corporate plot to control the government so they can't be restrained, regulated, fined, taxed, etc.. Oh, and they definitely want their serfs back!!

'Judicial supremacy': How the Supreme Court usurped the other two branches of government - Alternet.org https://www.alternet.org/judicial-supremacy-supreme-court-usurped/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt
#PartisanJudges
#WantTheirSerfsBack

"In 2023, there will be a lot of gridlock in Washington, D.C., with Republicans having a small majority in the U.S. House of Representatives while Democrats will still control the White House and the U.S. Senate. Democrats performed much better than expected in the 2022 midterms, losing the House but slightly increasing their narrow majority in the Senate and winning key gubernatorial races in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona and other swing states.

But even if the United States had taken a hard-left turn in 2020 and 2022 — even if Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont were president and Democrats had large majorities in both branches of Congress going in 2023 — the country would still have its most radical-right Supreme Court in generations. And the High Court won’t be moving to the center, let alone the left, anyone soon. It’s entirely possible that all three of the Gen-X justices President Donald Trump appointed (Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch) will still be on the Court 30 years from now.

The Court’s far-right turn is the focus of articles published by the New York Times and the conservative website The Bulwark on December 19. In the Times piece, journalist Adam Liptak emphasizes that today’s Supreme Court wields more power than other branches of the federal government.

“The conventional critique of the Supreme Court these days is that it has lurched to the right and is out of step with the public on many issues,” Liptak explains. “That is true so far as it goes. But a burst of recent legal scholarship makes a deeper point, saying the current Court is distinctive in a different way: It has rapidly been accumulating power at the expense of every other part of the government.”

Liptak notes what Stanford University law professor Mark A. Lemley had to say about the High Court in an article published by the Harvard Law Review on November 20.

Lemley wrote, “The Court has not been favoring one branch of government over another, or favoring states over the federal government, or the rights of people over governments. Rather, it is withdrawing power from all of them at once…. It is a Court that is consolidating its power, systematically undercutting any branch of government, federal or state, that might threaten that power, while at the same time undercutting individual rights.”

Lemley’s article was headlined “The Imperial Supreme Court” — a characterization that Liptak doesn’t disagree with. And Liptak points out that according to Rebecca L. Brown and Lee Epstein of the University of Southern California (USC), the High Court “is establishing a position of judicial supremacy over the president and Congress.”

Liptak also quotes University of California, Berkeley law professor Tejas N. Narechania, who wrote, “The Roberts Court, more than any other Court in history, uses its docket-setting discretion to select cases that allow it to revisit and overrule precedent.”

In an article she wrote for The Bulwark, University of Baltimore law professor Kimberly Wehle stresses that the Roberts Court has been showing a total disregard for precedent. Discussing the case Merrill v. Milligan, Wehle points out that how the Court ruled in the past isn’t a major concern for this edition of the Court.

“After the Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade last term,” Wehle writes, “it’s clear that the Court’s majority is not shy about overturning precedent, however entrenched it may be…. At issue in Merrill, which was argued on October 4, is whether Alabama’s newly redrawn congressional map illegally discriminates against Black voters under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). A three-judge lower-court panel, including two Trump appointees, agreed with the plaintiffs, deeming the Alabama map illegal and mandating the creation of a new one. If the Supreme Court sides with Alabama, it would mean another reversal of established precedent interpreting Section 2 of the VRA in a 1986 case called Thornburg v. Gingles. Even worse, it would be another serious gut-punch to Congress’ ability to pass laws remedying systemic discrimination, this time in voting.”

Yet another example of a right-wing judge usurping the power of elected officials to end run around democracy, and seize power undemocratically to ensure minority rule. This has been McConnel's and the Federalists Society's goal all along. They don't care if they can't obtain power via elections, they can impose their will on the majority via this undemocratic power grab.

Trump Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Christian right activist who thinks he is king
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/17/23512766/supreme-court-matthew-kacsmaryk-judge-trump-abortion-immigration-birth-control

#MagaCrazy
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#ChristianNationalism
#JudgesUsurpingLawmakersAuthority
#GOPHatesDemocracy

"On Thursday evening, a Trump-appointed judge named Matthew Kacsmaryk effectively ordered the Biden administration to reinstate a harsh, Trump-era border policy known as “Remain in Mexico,” which requires many immigrants seeking asylum in the United States to remain on the Mexican side of the border while their case is being processed. It’s the second time that Kacsmaryk has pulled this stunt — he did the same thing in 2021, and the Supreme Court overturned his decision last June.
...
His busy week, and months of earlier actions, show the havoc one rogue federal judge can create, especially in today’s judiciary.

The previous Thursday, Kacsmaryk became the first federal judge since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion to attack the right to contraception.

Kacsmaryk’s decision in Deanda v. Becerra targets Title X,...He claimed that the program is unlawful because it doesn’t require grant recipients to get parental permission before treating teenage patients. Lest there be any doubt, his opinion is riddled with obvious legal errors. Kacsmaryk didn’t even have jurisdiction to hear the Deanda case in the first place.

Meanwhile, in mid-November, Kacsmaryk handed down another decision in Neese v. Becerra, which held that a federal law prohibiting certain forms of discrimination by health providers does not protect against anti-LGBTQ discrimination. His opinion cannot be squared with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which established that statutes prohibiting “sex” discrimination also ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, because “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates are holding their breath waiting for Kacsmaryk to decide Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, a case asking him to force the FDA to withdraw its approval of mifepristone, a drug used to induce an enormous percentage of all abortions in the United States. Given Kacsmaryk’s record, it would be shocking if he does not issue such an order — regardless of whether he has any plausible legal basis for doing so.

Kacsmaryk is one of many Trump appointees to the federal bench who appears to have been chosen largely due to his unusually conservative political views. A former lawyer at a law firm affiliated with the religious right, he’s claimed that being transgender is a “mental disorder,” and that gay people are “disordered.” As Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said during his confirmation fight, “Mr. Kacsmaryk has demonstrated a hostility to the LGBTQ bordering on paranoia.”

And Kacsmaryk is just as fixated on what straight people are doing in their bedrooms. In a 2015 article, Kacsmaryk denounced a so-called “Sexual Revolution” that began in the 1960s and 1970s, and which “sought public affirmation of the lie that the human person is an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology, and that marriage, sexuality, gender identity, and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.”

Yet, thanks to an obscure rule governing which federal judges are assigned to hear cases in Texas federal courts — 95 percent of civil cases filed in Amarillo, Texas’s federal courthouse are automatically assigned to Kacsmaryk — this prurient man is now one of the most powerful public officials in the United States. Any conservative interest group can find a federal policy they do not like, file a legal complaint in the Amarillo federal courthouse challenging that policy, and nearly guarantee that their case will be heard by Kacsmaryk.

Kacsmaryk’s opinions are embarrassingly poorly reasoned — including his latest Remain in Mexico one
Many of Kacsmaryk’s decisions are so poorly reasoned that they can be rebutted in just a couple of sentences.

His opinion in Neese, for example, concludes that a statute prohibiting discrimination “on the basis of sex” does not prohibit LGBTQ discrimination. But, again, the holding of Bostock was that “it is impossible to discriminate against a person for being homosexual or transgender without discriminating against that individual based on sex.”

Reforming the Courts — Jeffrey K. Walker https://jeffreykwalker.com/reforming-the-court/

https://climatejustice.social/@jwalk12[email protected]

Interesting, and in my opinion, very viable take on reforming the Supreme Court!!

Reforming the Courts — Jeffrey K. Walker

#ReformSupremeCout
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt

"There are a lot of models to choose from if—as I am—you believe our Supreme Court needs some serious refurbishment to drag it into the 21st century. So as Emperor of My Blog, here’s what I’ll do about reforming the courts, starting with the Supremes.

First, I’ll expand the bench to fifteen justices with fixed fifteen-year terms. Every president would get four appointments per four-year term.

Riffing on Mexico, I’ll give the Senate 45 days to act on a nomination—if not, the nominee goes onto the Court. Since Mexico steadfastly refuses to Pay for That Wall, the least they can do is lend us a judicial appointment process. (By the way, I’ll extend this to all federal judicial appointments.)

Results That Matter
Taken together, these changes will immediately depressurize vacancies on the Court and eliminate the horrid death watches that life tenure produces. RBG was not the first—William O. Douglas, for example, refused to resign for almost a year after a debilitating stroke left him half-paralyzed and unable to carry out his duties. Fixed terms will also make the Supreme Court a bit more responsive to changing social, cultural, and political norms. Which is a good thing.

Then I’ll divide Court into three five-justice panels, established by lot each October when the Court starts a new session. I’ll only allow the Court to sit en banc in limited circumstances. This will immediately increase efficiency and allow tripling the number of decisions issued each year.

The only parts of my reform requiring constitutional amendment will be limiting the Senate’s ability to delay confirmation to a maximum of 45 days and instituting fifteen-year terms. And the second of these isn’t entirely settled, as at least one member of Congress publicly asserted recently. Every other reform could be implemented by regular legislative order and a presidential signature."

As if this supreme court was "crafted" to be anything but a partisan power grab and attempt to control the country by rightwing nutjobs who hate democracy!

'A political power grab': NY Times slams Supreme Court for even considering 'dangerously radical' ISL theory - Alternet.org https://www.alternet.org/media/no-basis-in-law-ny-times-editorial-board-slams-supreme-court-for-even-considering-a-dangerously-radical-legal-theory/?utm_medium=email&recip_id=462208&list_id=2

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt

"In the case Moore v. Harper, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking a look at partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and is weighing the merits of a far-right legal idea known as the independent state legislature (ISL) theory. The ISL, in its most extreme form, argues that only state legislatures should play a role in governing elections in individual states — not governors, not judges, not state supreme courts.

The ISL has been lambasted by a wide range of legal experts and constitutional scholars as anti-democracy, from liberals and progressive to right-wing Never Trump conservatives. But the New York Times’ editorial board, in a scathing editorial published on December 9, goes beyond slamming the ISL — it also slams the Supreme Court for even agreeing to consider Moore v. Harper and the ISL in the first place.

The board explains that in Moore v. Harper, North Carolina Republicans “are relying on an untested theory that asserts that state legislatures enjoy nearly unlimited power to set and change rules for federal elections.”

“In 2000, the chief justice at the time, William H. Rehnquist, proposed the idea in his concurring opinion on Bush v. Gore, and the independent state legislature theory has been floating around the fringes of right-wing legal circles ever since,” the Times’ editorial board explains. “To be clear, this is a political power grab in the guise of a legal theory. Republicans are trying to see if they can turn state legislatures — 30 of which are controlled by Republicans — into omnipotent, unaccountable election bosses with the help of the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. The theory has no basis in law, history or precedent.”

The board continues, “The idea that state lawmakers exist free of any constraints imposed by their constitution and state courts makes a mockery of the separation of powers, which is foundational to the American system of government. By the North Carolina lawmakers’ logic, they possess infinite power to gerrymander districts and otherwise control federal elections. It is a Constitution-free zone where no one else in the state — not the governor, not the courts, not the voters through ballot initiatives — has any say.”

The Times’ editorial board notes that when the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper on December 7, Justice Elena Kagan “rejected the theory out of hand.”

“That so many justices would take the theory seriously is bad enough,” the board laments. “Three of them — Justices Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas — appear to favor the independent state legislature theory, as they suggested in an opinion in an earlier stage of the case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh has also indicated his openness to it. It’s worse when the public trust in and approval of the Court have fallen to historic lows, thanks largely to aggressively partisan recent opinions, as this board has argued.”

The board continues, “There’s an old saying that only close cases make it to the Supreme Court. If they weren’t close, they would have been resolved in the lower courts. But Moore v. Harper isn’t a remotely close case. A ruling for the North Carolina lawmakers would flood the federal courts with election litigation that normally plays out in the states, upending the balance of federalism that defines American government. That’s not a conservative result; it’s a dangerously radical one.”"

Freedom of religion for me but not thee. These crazy, rightwing judges and other partisans, want to be able to impose their religious dictates on the rest of us and they have come a long way toward making that happen already. Lets see what they do about this case, but it doesn't look good so far. Alito and Gorsuch are foot-soldiers for the reactionary, right wing catholic arm of the Christian nationalist movement.

'Venom': Experts shocked as Gorsuch accuses Colorado of forcing anti-LGBTQ baker into 're-education program'

https://www.alternet.org/gorsuch-2658835299/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanJudges
#ChristianNationalism
#RightWingCatholicCabal

"Justice Gorsuch instead called it a “re-education program,” and slammed the state’s Solicitor General, Eric Olson, with it on Monday.

“Mr. Phillips did go through a re-education training program, pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr. Olson?” Gorsuch asked the solicitor general.

“He went through a process that ensured he was familiar –” Olson responded, before Gorsuch cut him off.

“It was a re-education program, right?” the justice blared.

“It was not a ‘re-education program,'” Olson replied, holding his ground.

“What do you call it?” Gorsuch, dissatisfied, pressed.

“It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law,” Olson explained.

“Some might be excused for calling that a ‘re-education program,’” Gorsuch snapped.

“I strongly disagree, Justice Gorsuch,” Olson said, defending the law.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who provided the clip above, warns: “It does not bode well for the future of civil rights law that Gorsuch believes a state imposes ‘reeducation training’ on employers when it reminds them how to comply with nondiscrimination rules.”

“Astounding that Gorsuch, A Supreme Court Justice,” tweeted Adam Cohen of Attorneys for Good Government, “Refers to Colorado giving courses on following civil rights law, As ‘reeducation training.'”

“Like being taught not to discriminate against LGBTQ is the same as being sent to a gulag for protesting communism in the Soviet Union,” he added.

Professor Elizabeth Sepper of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law says, “Justice Gorsuch describes education about antidiscrimination law and compliance as a REEDUCATION PROGRAM. This is beyond offensive. It was a central and SOFT tool of many civil rights movements and was essential to targeting market discrimination.”

Columbia Law School’s Elizabeth Reiner Platt, the Director of The Law, Rights, and Religion Project responded, “OMG Gorsuch repeatedly insists that a training on civil rights law is a ‘reeducation program.’ Good grief.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel, Vice President of Strategic Communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State tweeted, “WHOA. Gorsuch asks a very hostile question about sending the bakery to ‘a re-education program.’ He spits the phrase with venom and repeats it several times. He’s regurgitating right wing talking points.”"

Freedom of religion for me but not thee. These crazy, rightwing judges and other partisans, want to be able to impose their religious dictates on the rest of us and they have come a long way toward making that happen already. Lets see what they do about this case, but it doesn't look good so far. Alito and Gorsuch are foot-soldiers for the reactionary, right wing catholic arm of the Christian nationalist movement.

'Venom': Experts shocked as Gorsuch accuses Colorado of forcing anti-LGBTQ baker into 're-education program'

https://www.alternet.org/gorsuch-2658835299/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanJudges
#ChristianNationalism
#RightWingCatholicCabal

"Justice Gorsuch instead called it a “re-education program,” and slammed the state’s Solicitor General, Eric Olson, with it on Monday.

“Mr. Phillips did go through a re-education training program, pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr. Olson?” Gorsuch asked the solicitor general.

“He went through a process that ensured he was familiar –” Olson responded, before Gorsuch cut him off.

“It was a re-education program, right?” the justice blared.

“It was not a ‘re-education program,'” Olson replied, holding his ground.

“What do you call it?” Gorsuch, dissatisfied, pressed.

“It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law,” Olson explained.

“Some might be excused for calling that a ‘re-education program,’” Gorsuch snapped.

“I strongly disagree, Justice Gorsuch,” Olson said, defending the law.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who provided the clip above, warns: “It does not bode well for the future of civil rights law that Gorsuch believes a state imposes ‘reeducation training’ on employers when it reminds them how to comply with nondiscrimination rules.”

“Astounding that Gorsuch, A Supreme Court Justice,” tweeted Adam Cohen of Attorneys for Good Government, “Refers to Colorado giving courses on following civil rights law, As ‘reeducation training.'”

“Like being taught not to discriminate against LGBTQ is the same as being sent to a gulag for protesting communism in the Soviet Union,” he added.

Professor Elizabeth Sepper of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law says, “Justice Gorsuch describes education about antidiscrimination law and compliance as a REEDUCATION PROGRAM. This is beyond offensive. It was a central and SOFT tool of many civil rights movements and was essential to targeting market discrimination.”

Columbia Law School’s Elizabeth Reiner Platt, the Director of The Law, Rights, and Religion Project responded, “OMG Gorsuch repeatedly insists that a training on civil rights law is a ‘reeducation program.’ Good grief.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel, Vice President of Strategic Communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State tweeted, “WHOA. Gorsuch asks a very hostile question about sending the bakery to ‘a re-education program.’ He spits the phrase with venom and repeats it several times. He’s regurgitating right wing talking points.”"

Freedom of religion for me but not thee. These crazy, rightwing judges and other partisans, want to be able to impose their religious dictates on the rest of us and they have come a long way toward making that happen already. Lets see what they do about this case, but it doesn't look good so far. Alito and Gorsuch are foot-soldiers for the reactionary, right wing catholic arm of the Christian nationalist movement.

'Venom': Experts shocked as Gorsuch accuses Colorado of forcing anti-LGBTQ baker into 're-education program'

https://www.alternet.org/gorsuch-2658835299/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanJudges
#ChristianNationalism
#RightWingCatholicCabal

"Justice Gorsuch instead called it a “re-education program,” and slammed the state’s Solicitor General, Eric Olson, with it on Monday.

“Mr. Phillips did go through a re-education training program, pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr. Olson?” Gorsuch asked the solicitor general.

“He went through a process that ensured he was familiar –” Olson responded, before Gorsuch cut him off.

“It was a re-education program, right?” the justice blared.

“It was not a ‘re-education program,'” Olson replied, holding his ground.

“What do you call it?” Gorsuch, dissatisfied, pressed.

“It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law,” Olson explained.

“Some might be excused for calling that a ‘re-education program,’” Gorsuch snapped.

“I strongly disagree, Justice Gorsuch,” Olson said, defending the law.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who provided the clip above, warns: “It does not bode well for the future of civil rights law that Gorsuch believes a state imposes ‘reeducation training’ on employers when it reminds them how to comply with nondiscrimination rules.”

“Astounding that Gorsuch, A Supreme Court Justice,” tweeted Adam Cohen of Attorneys for Good Government, “Refers to Colorado giving courses on following civil rights law, As ‘reeducation training.'”

“Like being taught not to discriminate against LGBTQ is the same as being sent to a gulag for protesting communism in the Soviet Union,” he added.

Professor Elizabeth Sepper of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law says, “Justice Gorsuch describes education about antidiscrimination law and compliance as a REEDUCATION PROGRAM. This is beyond offensive. It was a central and SOFT tool of many civil rights movements and was essential to targeting market discrimination.”

Columbia Law School’s Elizabeth Reiner Platt, the Director of The Law, Rights, and Religion Project responded, “OMG Gorsuch repeatedly insists that a training on civil rights law is a ‘reeducation program.’ Good grief.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel, Vice President of Strategic Communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State tweeted, “WHOA. Gorsuch asks a very hostile question about sending the bakery to ‘a re-education program.’ He spits the phrase with venom and repeats it several times. He’s regurgitating right wing talking points.”"

Freedom of religion for me but not thee. These crazy, rightwing judges and other partisans, want to be able to impose their religious dictates on the rest of us and they have come a long way toward making that happen already. Lets see what they do about this case, but it doesn't look good so far. Alito and Gorsuch are foot-soldiers for the reactionary, right wing catholic arm of the Christian nationalist movement.

'Venom': Experts shocked as Gorsuch accuses Colorado of forcing anti-LGBTQ baker into 're-education program'

https://www.alternet.org/gorsuch-2658835299/

#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanJudges
#ChristianNationalism
#RightWingCatholicCabal

"Justice Gorsuch instead called it a “re-education program,” and slammed the state’s Solicitor General, Eric Olson, with it on Monday.

“Mr. Phillips did go through a re-education training program, pursuant to Colorado law, did he not, Mr. Olson?” Gorsuch asked the solicitor general.

“He went through a process that ensured he was familiar –” Olson responded, before Gorsuch cut him off.

“It was a re-education program, right?” the justice blared.

“It was not a ‘re-education program,'” Olson replied, holding his ground.

“What do you call it?” Gorsuch, dissatisfied, pressed.

“It was a process to make sure he was familiar with Colorado law,” Olson explained.

“Some might be excused for calling that a ‘re-education program,’” Gorsuch snapped.

“I strongly disagree, Justice Gorsuch,” Olson said, defending the law.

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who provided the clip above, warns: “It does not bode well for the future of civil rights law that Gorsuch believes a state imposes ‘reeducation training’ on employers when it reminds them how to comply with nondiscrimination rules.”

“Astounding that Gorsuch, A Supreme Court Justice,” tweeted Adam Cohen of Attorneys for Good Government, “Refers to Colorado giving courses on following civil rights law, As ‘reeducation training.'”

“Like being taught not to discriminate against LGBTQ is the same as being sent to a gulag for protesting communism in the Soviet Union,” he added.

Professor Elizabeth Sepper of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law says, “Justice Gorsuch describes education about antidiscrimination law and compliance as a REEDUCATION PROGRAM. This is beyond offensive. It was a central and SOFT tool of many civil rights movements and was essential to targeting market discrimination.”

Columbia Law School’s Elizabeth Reiner Platt, the Director of The Law, Rights, and Religion Project responded, “OMG Gorsuch repeatedly insists that a training on civil rights law is a ‘reeducation program.’ Good grief.”

Attorney Andrew L. Seidel, Vice President of Strategic Communications for Americans United for Separation of Church and State tweeted, “WHOA. Gorsuch asks a very hostile question about sending the bakery to ‘a re-education program.’ He spits the phrase with venom and repeats it several times. He’s regurgitating right wing talking points.”"

The Federalist Society's Lackeys on the Supreme Court Aren't Hiding their Stripes
The pretense of nonpartisanship should be well and truly shattered for everyone.
Federalist Society Hosts 4 Supreme Court Justices to Celebrate Right-Wing Capture https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a41936985/federalist-society-supreme-court/
#PartisanCaptureOfJudiciary
#PartisanSupremeCourt SupremeCourt

"...If the hoary old pretense of non-partisanship at the Supreme Court were actually true, then this kind of thing wouldn’t happen: This week, the Federalist Society, the legal terrarium that has produced the carefully engineered conservative majority on the Supreme Court, as well as all manner of exotic fauna at the lower levels of the federal judiciary, held its annual gala hootenanny in Washington. From Reuters:

U.S. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett received standing ovations from members of the conservative Federalist Society on Thursday at its first annual convention since the court overturned a nationwide right to abortion. Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch also received applause at the event of the legal group, which is one of the most influential in the country and whose members have long criticized the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that the court overturned in June.

The loudest applause at the event in Washington, D.C. may have been not for the justices but for Alito's opinion in the June ruling. Other conservative members of the court backed the ruling. Alito did not mention the ruling or other aspects of the court's work during his brief remarks. But Stephen Markman, a former justice on the Michigan Supreme Court, said that if the ruling were forever associated with Alito, "I do not know of any decision on any court by any judge of which that judge could be more proud.” The comments were met by a standing ovation, with attendees turning to face toward Alito. Barrett also briefly spoke at the event, largely honoring the late Judge Laurence Silberman, who served on D.C.'s federal appeals court and died last month. As she took the stage, Barrett said: "It's really nice to have a lot of noise made not by protesters outside of my house.”
It was a celebration of conservative partisanship by the coddled products of a lushly financed campaign to render the federal judiciary a weapon with several purposes: to roll back the legal gains made by minorities; to enforce a plutocratic and theocratic order in the law; and frankly—mainly—to Own The Libs.

At another moment of the gathering, Judge William Pryor, chief judge of the 11th U.S. Circuit, went out of his way to ridicule legal journalists with whom he disagreed (including Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern of Slate), as well as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), who has dedicated a good portion of the past two years to tracing the dark money network that finances groups like the Federalist Society and the judges that emerge from it, linking that money to a lot of the conservative policy projects that judges have protected in a way that would have made Samuel Chase glow with pride.

Two things are different now from the days when Chase was on trial, and even from the days when Mr. Dooley shrewdly sized up the situation. First, unlike justices of the past, these new judges do not seem to feel free to evolve, which is part of the reason they have lifetime gigs in the first place. President Dwight Eisenhower thought he was getting a reliable voice for the status quo when he appointed Earl Warren to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1953. Needless to say, Ike called that shot a little early. This doesn’t happen any more. Except for Gorsuch’s stand on Native American issues, the conservatives on the present court are as predictable as the tides.

The second, more corrosive difference is that these conservative judges aren’t even pretending they aren’t political animals anymore. Soaking up the cheers at a Federalist Society meeting marks you as a partisan. (At the end of his rocky confirmation process, Kavanaugh was feted by the society at Union Station in D.C. Opponents responded by setting up a Jumbotron across the street on which they played the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford on an endless loop as people walked into the party. This was bone politics at its most obvious.) Giving a speech like Pryor did marks you as a partisan. Nobody is spending a dime of dark money on camouflage anymore.

The Supreme Court has a savage credibility problem right now. Its approval rating never has been lower, and its trustworthiness is scraping bottom as well. (There is lively talk about expanding its membership, though there’s no credible path to do so at the moment.) And the conservative majority on the court could care less about whether people approve of it or even trust it very much.

The Constitution may follow the flag—to paraphrase Mr. Dooley— but the Supreme Court follows the money."