Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito just made a bombshell announcement in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts. Wait until you hear what he has to say… Follow our host, Guy Cohen: ► YouTube (LIVE STREAM): youtube.com/imreallyimportant ► Twitch (LIVE STREAM): https://www.twitch.tv/imreallyimportant ► Twitter: https://twitter.com/imreallyimprtnt ► TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@imreallyimprtnt
The pro-insurrectionist flags that were flown at Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's houses aren't just a public show of support for the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.1 They are a flagrant violation of the Supreme Court's own code of ethics, which requires justices to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."2,3 Alito isn't the only one flouting basic judicial ethics. Justice Clarence Thomas has refused to recuse himself from cases related to January 6, despite the fact that his wife attended the January 6 Stop the Steal rally and was actively involved in the plot to overturn the election.4 Alito's pro-insurrection flags have sparked a loud public outcry — and now we must turn up the heat. The Supreme Court's code of conduct instructs justices to avoid even the appearance of bias in cases before the Court. And the Supreme Court has explicitly cautioned its employees against political displays, including signs and bumper stickers.5 However, because the code of conduct has no enforcement mechanism, Justice Alito faces no consequences whatsoever.6 Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas is also hopelessly compromised in the January 6 cases, given that his own wife attended the January 6 Stop the Steal rally and sent a barrage of text messages to the White House chief of staff urging him to help Trump overturn the election. And yet right now, Justices Thomas and Alito are sitting in judgment of Trump's claim of total immunity for the crimes he committed while in office, including those surrounding the January 6 insurrection. Demand Progress Action has mobilized tens of thousands of people to contact their representatives to demand Supreme Court ethics reform, and we're now urgently working to mobilize our 1.5 million affiliated activists to hold Justices Alito and Thomas accountable for their blatant conflicts of interest and corruption. With gratitude, The team at Demand Progress Action Sources: PAID FOR BY DEMAND PROGRESS (DemandProgress.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Join our online community on Facebook or Twitter. |
 | ||||||||||||||
Friday, May 24, 2024 ■ Today's Top News
Top Senate Dems Call on Roberts to Back Alito Recusal in Trump Cases"Justice Alito actively engaged in political activity, failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary," said two Democratic leaders.By Julia Conley
US, EU Urged to 'Use Their Leverage' to Force Israeli Compliance With ICJ Order"Governments should use their leverage—including arms embargoes and targeted sanctions—to press Israel to comply," said Human Rights Watch's Israel and Palestine director.By Brett Wilkins
Israel's Response to ICJ Order to Halt Rafah Assault? More Bombing"What needs to be ordered is a permanent cease-fire and an end to the siege and occupation," said a Palestinian forced to flee Gaza.By Jessica Corbett
Analysis Shows Trump's Escalated Talk of a 'Rigged' 2024 ElectionTrump has cast doubt on the upcoming election's fairness about once per day since he announced his candidacy—engaging in a strategy The New York Times referred to as "heads, I win; tails, you cheated."By Edward Carver
ICJ Orders Israel to 'Immediately Halt Its Military Offensive' in RafahDefense lawyers for Israel did not convince the International Court of Justice that the ongoing evacuation operation in the southern Gaza city had enhanced "the security of civilians."By Julia Conley
'Sad Day for Free Speech': Media Matters Layoffs Follow 'Thermonuclear' Attack by Elon Musk"This is how free speech is actually chilled—vengeful dipshit billionaires," said one media executive, after more than a dozen staffers let go from nonprofit watchdog whose mission is to combat right-wing disinformation and propaganda.By Jon Queally | ||||||||||||||
JOIN THE MOVEMENTAs a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
■ More NewsSoutheast Abortion Clinic Wait Times Soared After Florida Ban'Trump Is to Blame': Louisiana to Classify Abortion Pills as 'Dangerous' DrugsNOAA Predicts 'Extraordinary' Atlantic Hurricane Season as Ocean Temperatures Soar | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
■ OpinionAre Workers Just Too Stupid to Understand Inflation?It might be wise to stop hyping how wonderful the economy is for working people who know one thing better than any so-called expert: the economic strain they and their families feel each day.By Les Leopold Why Biden Should Run on ClimateIt’s a strong triple threat to say: Trump will take away your rights. He will take away your democracy. And he will take away the planet you’ve known.By Bill Mckibben The Pentagon Keeps Procrastinating on Paying Reparations for the Lives It ShattersWhile the U.S. military has long been killing civilians—in massacres by ground troops, air strikes and even, in August 1945, nuclear attacks—compensating those harmed has never been a serious priority.By Nick Turse | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Clarence Thomas' wife, Ginni Thomas, attended the January 6 Stop the Steal rally and pleaded with senior White House staff to help Trump overturn the election in the days leading up to the insurrection.1
Now Clarence Thomas wants to rule on Trump’s immunity case, which the Supreme Court heard this week. Thomas has a CLEAR conflict of interest in the case — which could decide whether Trump and others involved in January 6, including his wife, could be prosecuted for election interference.2
Sign the petition: Demand that Clarence Thomas recuse himself in the Trump immunity case!
The slew of Clarence Thomas’ ethics issues are not minor, isolated incidents. He’s taken millions in undisclosed luxury vacations and income from right-wing billionaires, and that’s just the beginning of it. To describe Thomas’s string of behaviors that likely broke the law, experts and retired judges have used words like INCOMPREHENSIBLE, HIDING, VIOLATION, and CORRODES PUBLIC TRUST.3,4
Thomas has refused to step aside in other cases where he’s had a conflict of interest. Now, in this case involving Trump, the ruling could implicate his own wife in Trump's criminal scheme to overturn the 2020 election. He must step aside immediately.
Thanks for taking action,
Joey and the team at Demand Progress
27 April 23
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
The chief justice’s latest trick to ward off oversight is the ploy of a royal, not a judge.
In an accompanying “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices,” presumably released for the public, the chief justice laid out the web of laws and practices and guidelines used voluntarily by each justice to determine their individual ethics obligations. Perhaps he was attempting to clarify things, but instead the document illuminates the problem. These obligations and commitments are advisory, unenforceable, and subjective. In response to the widespread concern that no person should be a judge in their own cause, the court has confirmed that it shall continue to be the sole judge of that. (Meanwhile, it will enforce this principle against other courts—which is great, but also … come on!)
Put aside for a moment Politico’s new report that Justice Neil Gorsuch failed to disclose that he’d sold his valuable Colorado property to a prominent lawyer with multiple cases before the court only nine days after he was confirmed, or Bloomberg’s new revelations that Harlan Crow, Justice Clarence Thomas’ GOP-megadonor billionaire friend, also had business before the court, yet his lavish gifts to Thomas were not disclosed because the justice said Crow had no business before the court. Note also that Gorsuch’s failure to disclose has been defended on the grounds that the justice was not friends with the purchaser of his land, whereas Thomas’ failure to disclose Crow’s gifts has been defended on the grounds that the justice was close friends with him. Which “friend” rule wins? Who can possibly know.
The justices themselves are wholly responsible for this high-octane ethics quagmire, which now drags into its fourth week. Any sane institution that relies wholly on public approval, when faced with multiple irrefutable reports of distortions and deception, would respond with a plan to do better. It speaks volumes that the Imperial Court’s response is a promise to simply continue to do the same. Why? Because it thinks the other branches won’t do anything about it. As Ian Millhiser noted in Vox this week, the Constitution makes it extraordinarily difficult to remove a justice, or diminish the court’s power. The reason it is set up this way, believe it or not, is because the framers thought the judiciary would rise above the partisan fray. In practice, however, the Supreme Court has proven remarkably easy for one political party to capture. Its members are selected through a flagrantly political process. It is formed by political imperatives. And yet the court pretends—and demands we all pretend—that it’s magically purified of politics as soon as its justices are seated.
In reality, it’s just a monarchy tricked out as the least dangerous branch, with black robes instead of bejeweled crowns. Indeed, the implicit argument that justices are somehow entitled to live like kings is part of the current ethics problem. For their part, the justices insist that it must ever be thus, not realizing that the only question that matters is whether that willful blindness can be imposed upon the country by fiat. Chief Justice Roberts appears to believe it can.
Perhaps the most depressing part of Roberts’ refusal to appear before the Senate is his claim that such appearances should be “exceedingly rare.” (The chief justice himself testified before Congress on ethics reform before.) It seems the rule is that it’s only ever the court that will determine when it has an ethics problem. Correcting that is precisely why Sen. Durbin invited him to testify. The fact that the chief justice thinks it’s up to him to let us know when it thinks it’s having a legitimacy crisis? That’s why it’s having a legitimacy crisis.
In truth, Roberts probably realizes that the court’s current policy of complete self-policing is indefensible. That’s why he didn’t try to defend it in his letter. In place of a justification, he churned out a brief book report on the history of chief justices testifying before Congress, the upshot of which is: It’s unusual. Well, yeah. It’s also unusual for a justice to break the law by refusing to disclose lavish trips and land deals with a billionaire benefactor.
While we’re on the topic of unusual things emanating from the highest court in the land, we could also mention Justice Samuel Alito spewing partisan gripes and taking swipes at respected journalists for reporting honestly on the court. Add in Justice Amy Coney Barrett blaming the press for undermining respect for the court in a speech delivered at the Mitch McConnell Center. We could toss in the fact that Justice Brett Kavanaugh once told the Senate he was the target of a vast Democratic plot designed to exact “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” when the Senate was holding a hearing about his fitness to serve for life on an imperial court. But what’s the point? Recall that, in 1969, Justice Abe Fortas was driven off the court for a scandal so quaint it barely registers today: He got paid $15,000 to teach a seminar and also received, then returned, a retainer from a financier friend. In 2023, we learned that Gorsuch hid the identity of the ultra-connected lawyer who bought his property, and it’s barely a one-day news story.
It’s unusual for multiple justices to commit, in the span of a few weeks, the caliber of ethics infractions that pushed Fortas off the court. But while most justices of the Warren and Burger Courts learned the lessons of the Fortas ouster—that it was worth it to behave impeccably—the takeaway on Roberts’ watch seems to be that denial and blame-shifting will suffice to allay public anxiety.
Unusual times call for unusual measures. A frank explanation from the chief justice is pretty much the least Durbin could’ve asked for.
If there is any legal analysis in Roberts’ letter, it’s limited to four words: The chief justice has “separation of powers concerns” about being called to testify before the Senate. How interesting. The court often uses this “concern” to box in other branches, limiting their ability to enact or enforce laws that address pressing problems today. But it steadfastly rejects the idea that, by undoing the results of democratic lawmaking, the judiciary itself might violate the separation of powers. Roberts has now taken this exceptionalism to a stratospheric new level: The chief justice of the United States can simply invoke the phrase “separation of powers” as a talisman to ward off any efforts at oversight. No need for actual constitutional analysis; just take Roberts’ word for it that James Madison would have hated for him to answer the Senate’s questions.
The public, on the other hand, seems to think differently. Americans’ confidence in the Supreme Court is in free-fall. Despite Roberts’ brush off, Congress isn’t waiting for the justices to get their own house in order. Bills such as Sen. Chris Murphy’s Supreme Court Ethics Act and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act would finally impose actual rules on the justices’ conduct. In addition, Sens. Angus King (an independent) and Lisa Murkowski (a Republican) have just introduced the Senate’s first bipartisan bill to require the justices to write and adopt a formal code of conduct. There is a growing public appetite for new reforms and it’s not clear that hand-waving about inchoate separation of powers concerns will quell the storm. The same justices who feel harassed and exposed because reporters are combing through their undisclosed financial dealings right now could have solved this problem with candor and honest reporting of their financial dealings on the routine occasions on which they were asked. In the midst of the crisis, they eschew a commitment to candor to instead mutter something about the nature of checks and balances, with the proviso that they are susceptible to neither.
These are the ploys of emperors. Unquestioned, unlimited authority may befit a ruler who reigns by divine right. But the chief justice, like all government officials, ultimately draws his power from the people. He wields a gavel, not a scepter. And the Constitution grants him no overarching right to insulate his entire court from the kind of minimal accountability without which no democracy can thrive.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
19 March 22
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
While Ginni Thomas has worked as a GOP operative, her husband has refused to recuse himself.
It’s become conventional wisdom that there’s nothing that can be done to pry a Supreme Court justice, like Thomas, from the bench after they receive what is more often than not a lifetime appointment. But every Democratic member of the House of Representatives should be Googling the name "Samuel Chase" right now.
The oft-forgotten Chase, in addition to being a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, was a member of the Maryland General Assembly, a member of the Continental Congress and the eighth justice to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court.
Still, his long and distinguished résumé didn’t win him many fans. The conservative mayor of Annapolis called him a “busy, restless incendiary, a ringleader of mobs, a foul-mouthed and inflaming son of discord and faction,” noted a 1974 retrospective that ran in Maryland's Evening Capital newspaper. Chase didn’t hold back against his critics either, calling them “despicable tools of power, emerged from obscurity and basking in proprietary sunshine.”
His enemies included President Thomas Jefferson, who saw the judge as an extreme partisan, with a biased attitude toward defense lawyers and jurors. In 1804, nine years into Chase’s term on the court, Jefferson and his allies turned to what is still the only way to force a justice out: impeachment. In recent years, we have become all too familiar with the process for impeaching a U.S. president. Chase is a reminder that the Constitution contains the same rules for impeaching federal judges as it does for presidents.
While the associate justice was impeached on eight charges in the House, the Senate — despite being dominated by Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans — didn’t reach the two-thirds majority required to force him out on any of them.
Nevertheless, convicted or not, Chase remains the only Supreme Court justice in American history to be impeached. And it was not for some conflict of interest or violation of judicial ethics. It was because his political opponents, including the then-president, thought he was too partisan to rule in a fair or impartial manner.
Today, we agree that a judge cannot, and should not, be removed simply because we disagree with their rulings. But we should then also agree that if judges are violating ethics or subject to conflicts of interest, they should in theory be impeached and removed from the bench.
Which brings us back to Justice Clarence Thomas. In January, The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer profiled Thomas’ wife, Ginni, a longtime conservative operative and lobbyist, and revealed how her lobbying firm was on the payroll of far-right activist Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy. Gaffney and others submitted an amicus brief to the court in 2017 in support of the Trump administration’s travel ban, arguing that “the challenge of Islam must be confronted.”
Shockingly, Thomas did not recuse himself from the case given the clear financial conflict. He never even disclosed the $200,000 paid to his wife despite being required to report the source of a spouse’s income as part of his annual financial disclosures, according to The New Yorker. Thomas would later join his fellow four conservative justices in voting to uphold Trump’s shameful Muslim ban.
In February, The New York Times Magazine reported that Ginni Thomas served on the board of a secretive right-wing group called CNP Action. In November 2020, it circulated a “November ‘action steps’ document” instructing its members in the days after the election “to pressure Republican lawmakers into challenging the election results and appointing alternate slates of electors,” according to the report.
But when former President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court to block the House Jan. 6 committee from obtaining hundreds of pages of White House records from the National Archives, Thomas was the sole justice to vote against the House investigators.
Then on Monday, in an interview with a conservative blog, Ginni Thomas admitted to having attended the "Stop the Steal" rally at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, 2021. She admitted to being in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 6, thereby endorsing that day's Trump-led rally to overturn the election, but she claimed to have left before Trump addressed the crowd because she “got cold.”
To recap: These reports showed that the wife of a Supreme Court justice not only took undisclosed money from an activist who filed a brief in front of the court, but that she was also part of a campaign to try to overturn the 2020 election result and attended the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol. And as Ginni Thomas herself helpfully explained in Monday’s interview: “Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America.”
Ridiculously, Clarence Thomas wants us to believe he can carry on as an associate justice and remain above the fray. In September, speaking at the University of Notre Dame, he railed against growing criticisms of the court’s partisan behavior. If he really wanted to avoid looking like a politician, why allow his wife’s political activism and income streams to have even the appearance of an impact on his decisions instead of recusing himself?
In fact, unlike others on the court, such as Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Stephen Breyer, who have recused themselves from cases involving family members, Clarence Thomas has never recused himself from a case because of Ginni Thomas or her work.
Why should we continue to tolerate his outrageous and unethical behavior? Bear in mind, the nine justices on the Supreme Court are the only federal judges in America not bound by a formal judicial ethics code. Instead, they are supposed to regulate themselves. (Stop laughing.)
Plenty of House Democrats will say there is no point even considering an impeachment of Thomas, correctly — if defensively — pointing out that the current Senate would never vote to convict. Can you imagine Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., or Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz. — let alone 17 Republican senators — agreeing to vote to remove a Supreme Court justice for the first time in our history?
But from a purely political point of view, Democrats should be loudly drawing attention to the fact that the wife of a sitting Supreme Court justice supported Trump’s coup attempt. That justice then refused to recuse himself from a case involving the investigation of that coup attempt. There is a clear value in holding impeachment hearings to draw attention to Thomas and his wife and their inappropriate behavior, especially as an increasingly partisan, conservative-majority court guts voting and reproductive rights. What would Republicans be doing if they had held a House majority and, say, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s spouse had supported attempts to block a duly elected GOP president from taking office and she refused to recuse herself from related cases?
Perhaps above all else, impeachment by the House is still impeachment, no matter what the Senate decides in the trial. A Supreme Court appointment may be for life. But so, too, are impeachments, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi aptly put it in 2020. Democrats in the House have both the constitutional authority and moral obligation to put a permanent asterisk next to Justice Clarence Thomas’ name.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
