The Supreme Court is not only broken. It is also a threat to democracy and to the rights so important to all of us. To reform the court we need to defeat Trump and vote all down the line for Democrats or Working Family Party candidates to make sure that Court Reform goes forward. This posting is long, but makes the case of how corrupt our current court is. Please read it and if you agree with it SHARE IT.

 

With apologies to Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson it is now urgent that we call out the rogue and illegitimate Supreme Court. To be blunt the Supreme Court now has a number of justices who are liars. Some of the justices are also lacking any ethical standards and any respect for the process of becoming a Supreme Court Justice. And finally, at least two of the justices are outright corrupt and greedy men who can be bought by people with power. Collectively they have tanked the reputation of the court, eroded public support for the legitimacy of the legal system, and contributed to the growth of authoritarianism and wholesale assaults on the rights of the people of our nation.

 

Let’s get specific:

Liars 1 – Who said Roe v Wade is established law and then overturned it:

Coney Barrett: “I can’t pre-commit or say, ‘Yes, I’m going in with some agenda,’ because I’m not,” she said. “Judges can’t just wake up one day and say I have an agenda — I like guns, I hate guns, I like abortion, I hate abortion — and walk in like a royal queen and impose their will on the world.” [However, in 2016 Trump vowed to appoint justices who’d vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide. “That will happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life justices on the court,” Trump said.]

Kavanaugh: In a private meeting between Kavanaugh and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, she said the nominee had told her he considered Roe to be “settled law.” In his hearing shortly later he said “It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis… The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times.” [Still, remember that Trump would only propose judges who are committed to overturning Roe.]

Gorsuch: During Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing he refused to take a position on Roe. He told Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., that he “would have walked out the door” had Trump asked him to overturn Roe. Gorsuch took the position that Roe is a precedent. Precedent is the “anchor of law,” he said. “It is the starting place for a judge….I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed,” he said. “A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

Thomas: “I can say on that issue and on those cases I have no agenda. I have an open mind, and I can function strongly as a judge.” “I think those of us who have become judges understand that we have to begin to shed the personal opinions that we have. We tend not to express strong opinions so that we are able to, without the burden or without being burdened by those opinions, rule impartially on cases,” he said. Thomas also said it would be inappropriate for any judge, including himself, to take a case on an issue “in which he or she has such strong views that he or she cannot be impartial.” “I don’t sit on any issues, on any cases that I have prejudged. I think that it would totally undermine and compromise my capacity as a judge,” he said.

Alito:Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time,” he said. “It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed. But it is an issue that is involved in litigation now at all levels.”

Roberts: For the court to overturn a prior decision, Roberts said he thought it was not sufficient to believe the case had been wrongly decided. The justices would have to consider other factors too, he said, “like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments.”  “I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness,” he said then.

(quotes from NPR June 22, 2022)

All of them then added gibberish about being open minded and having to consider whatever comes before the court.

 

Liars 2 – Judges who stated in hearings that no one is above the law including the President and then voted to give presidents immunity:

Roberts: “I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution and statutes. Now, there often arise issues where there’s a conflict between the legislature and the executive over an exercise of executive authority — asserted executive authority.”

NYT Roberts’ confirmation Sept 14, 2005

 

Coney Barrett: Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett agreed with the statement that no one is above the law during questioning at her confirmation hearing on Tuesday. But Barrett did not comment when asked if a president who refuses to comply with a court order is a threat to our constitutional system. Nor did she provide an answer when asked if the president can pardon himself. Barrett said the Supreme Court has the final word, but it can’t control what happens after that. “The Supreme Court can’t control what the president obeys,” Barrett said. A court can pronounce the law and issue a judgment, but it lacks control on how the other branches respond.

ABA Journal Oct 14, 2020

 

Gorsuch: “nobody is above the law in this country, and that includes the president of the United States.”

AP March 21, 2017

 

Kavanaugh: President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday sought to downplay Democratic concerns that he would issue rulings protecting the president from potential legal jeopardy.

During his second day of confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kavanaugh said that “no one is above the law,” and called the landmark 1974 case forcing President Richard Nixon to turn over White House tapes “one of the greatest moments in American judicial history.”

That case, which Kavanaugh said two decades ago may have been wrongly decided, ultimately led to Nixon’s resignation from office.

CNBC Sept 5, 2018

 

Alito: “The law applies equally to all persons, including a person who happens for a period of time to occupy the Presidency,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in 2020.

 

Thomas: “The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity,” Thomas wrote in 2020.

 

All Nine Justices: Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. That case played out during Trump’s presidency and involved a criminal investigation, but no charges.

AP April 25, 2024 in Bangor Daily News

 

Unethically Becoming a Justice:

Gorsuch: Judge Gorsuch only got to the court through the unprecedented delays that the Republican-controlled Senate imposed preventing President Obama from even getting a hearing on his nominee. A judge with even a vague concept of ethics and government process would have refused to be considered, but Gorsuch clearly valued his career and his right wing politics more than any legitimate process for getting a lifelong appointment.

 

Coney Barrett: Judge Coney Barrett had her nomination rushed through with unprecedented speed in another end run process by a Republican-controlled Senate. In this case the Senate wanted to confirm her before Democrats might win control of the Senate. Once again with even a shred of ethical standards she would have refused to be considered and asked that proper procedures be followed.

 

Roberts: Chief Justice Roberts should be added to the unethical group by never speaking up and reminding the Senate Republicans or the full Senate of how legitimate candidates are presented for lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court.

 

Crooked year after year:

Thomas: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted millions of dollars’ worth of gifts over the past two decades on the bench, a total nearly 10 times the value of all gifts received by his fellow justices during the same time, according to a new analysis.

Thomas received 103 gifts with a total value of more than $2.4 million between 2004 and 2023, the judicial reform group Fix the Court said in a report Thursday. In contrast, Thomas’ fellow justices over the same period accepted a total of just 93 gifts worth a combined value of only about $248,000, according to the nonprofit group.

Fix the Court identified another 101 “likely gifts” — with a total estimated value of almost $1.8 million —that Thomas received in the form of free trips and lodging from billionaire businessman Harlan Crow, and at the exclusive Bohemian Grove club.

Counting those gifts, Thomas’ total two-decade haul is valued at nearly $4.2 million.

 

Alito: Thomas’ fellow conservative justice Samuel Alito accounted for the lion’s share of that value. Fix the Court’s analysis found that Alito accepted 16 gifts worth a combined $170,095.

CNBC June 7, 2024

 

You be the judge, but not these unethical, wingnut, liars and crooks!

Bob Brand