WORTH WATCHING!
Rebel HQ
856K subscribers
/ yazzzzzk
Instagram - 
/ yazzzzzk
Twitter - 
/ yazziek
Be a driving force for change by supporting our work: https://go.tyt.com/rebelhq
#YasminKhan #News #Politics
Yasmin Khan
by Rebel HQ
Showing posts with label SUPREME COURT ETHICS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SUPREME COURT ETHICS. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 10, 2024
Clarence Thomas ERUPTS As SCOTUS Says "NO!"
Sunday, June 23, 2024
Clarence Thomas is so freaking corrupt
 |
A blockbuster new report revealed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took even more secret flights on right-wing billionaire Harlan Crow's private jet than was previously known.1
The Republican megadonor's jet would cost about $10,000 per hour to charter, but Thomas never disclosed the trips. And that comes on top of millions of dollars in gifts, private school tuition payments, and luxury vacations previously uncovered by investigative reporters.2
Enough is enough. Now is the time for Congress to pass a binding code of ethics for the Supreme Court and rein in this blatant corruption.
After months of dogged investigative journalism uncovered the deep financial ties between Thomas and Crow, the justice finally admitted that he had indeed taken luxury vacations that he took with his ultra-wealthy right-wing benefactor.3
In total, Thomas has disclosed over $4 million in gifts during his time on the nation's most powerful court.4
Now these new revelations show that he's gotten even more than previously known.
And while Thomas's corruption has been the most shameless, he's not the only one on the take. Justice Samuel Alito has received his own share of gifts and trips.5 John Roberts' wife is being paid millions by corporate law firms that regularly argue cases before the Court.6 Neil Gorsuch cut a $1.8 million sweetheart real estate deal with the CEO of one of the biggest corporate law firms in the country just after he was confirmed.7
All of this is possible because, unlike other public servants in the federal government, Supreme Court justices have no binding code of ethics. As a result, they think they're above the law.
That's why Demand Progress Action has mobilized more than 100,000 people to demand that Congress pass the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.
With gratitude for all that you do,
The team at Demand Progress Action
Sources:
1. ProPublica, "Harlan Crow Provided Clarence Thomas at Least 3 Previously Undisclosed Private Jet Trips, Senate Probe Finds," June 13, 2024.
2. ProPublica, "Friends of the Court," accessed June 21, 2024.
3. ProPublica, "Justice Clarence Thomas Acknowledges He Should Have Disclosed Free Trips From Billionaire Donor," June 7, 2024.
4. Steven Mazie, X, June 6, 2024.
5. ProPublica, "Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court," June 20, 2023.
6. The New York Times, "At the Supreme Court, Ethics Questions Over a Spouse's Business Ties," January 31, 2023.
7. Politico, "Law firm head bought Gorsuch-owned property," April 25, 2023. 
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, June 14, 2024
Sen. Whitehouse and Lawrence Demolish GOP Arguments against Supreme Court Ethics Bill
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse
66.1K subscribers
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) joins MSNBC's The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell after Republicans blocked the unanimous consent request to pass Senator Whitehouse’s Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. The SCERT Act would require Supreme Court justices to adopt a binding code of conduct, create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations of the code of conduct and other laws, improve disclosure and transparency when a justice has a connection to a party or amicus before the Court, and require justices to explain their recusal decisions to the public.
Sen. Whitehouse Blasts GOP Blockade of Supreme Court Ethics Bill
THANK YOU SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE!
REPUBLICANS BLOCKED: Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act
June 12 | Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) today delivered remarks on the Senate floor after Republicans blocked the unanimous consent request to pass Senator Whitehouse’s Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. The SCERT Act would require Supreme Court justices to adopt a binding code of conduct, create a mechanism to investigate alleged violations of the code of conduct and other laws, improve disclosure and transparency when a justice has a connection to a party or amicus before the Court, and require justices to explain their recusal decisions to the public.
Friday, May 24, 2024
Alito Writes Again
 |
Here’s the headline: Today, the Supreme Court, In a 6-3 decision split along conservative-liberal lines, reversed the lower court and approved a South Carolina congressional map that the district court previously found was an unconstitutional dilution of Black voting power. The case is Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. The Supreme Court signed off on the map, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that South Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature relied improperly on race when it drew its map. The map passed muster in the majority’s view because it was a politically motivated gerrymander, not a racial one.
Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, concluded that “[I]nferring bad faith based on the racial effects of a political gerrymander in a jurisdiction in which race and partisan preference are very closely correlated” would allow plaintiffs to succeed in making race-based claims when a gerrymander was partisan in nature.
Legal background: In a 2019 U.S. Supreme Court case, Rucho v. Common Cause, the Court held it would not consider whether the election maps drawn by a state were a political gerrymander. It held that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. After Rucho, federal courts can only consider whether electoral maps are an illegal racial gerrymander.
So, the South Carolina legislature acknowledged and even embraced the political nature of the clearly gerrymandered map it adopted. Plaintiff voters argued it was a racial gerrymander poorly disguised as a partisan one to escape judicial review. Despite persuasive evidence that was the case, the Court permitted the politically repressive structure to remain in place.
You can read the full decision here.
The decision is consistent with what we expected after oral argument. At the time, it seemed clear that at least five Justices would take this view. You may find it helpful to review our discussion following oral argument, which lays out the issues that were before the Court in some detail.
 |
This decision is problematic because it gives anyone who wants to gerrymander, Republican or Democrat, the roadmap for getting away with it. Cloak it in politics, just say that’s the reason you made the decisions you did, and you are good to go. That may, coincidentally, make Justices Alito and Thomas’ wealthy friends happy, but it does not serve the principles of democracy upon which this country was founded.
It’s important to be fair and note that Justice Alito was not alone in this case. He was joined by five other justices—the decision was 6-3. Even without his involvement, the votes were still there for this result. And, there can be good reasons for courts to avoid interfering in purely political decisions.
To be clear, I strongly disagree with Justice Alito’s opinion. It echoes back to Chief Justice Roberts’ voting rights opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, where he asserted that discrimination against Black voters was no longer a problem because of advances society had made. Justice Alito, here, seems more concerned about a state legislature’s decisions being characterized as racist than he is with the possibility that the legislature is acting in a racist way.
But my personal view isn’t the point: this situation illustrates the problem with the loss of public confidence in the Court. This case is about voting, it’s about whether politicians who are in control at the moment can rig the system by drawing election maps that permit them to retain control in future elections, even when they become a minority, by gerrymandering. In this case, the Republican majority that includes Justices Alito and Thomas ruled consistently with the views of powerful people from whom they have accepted favors. Inevitably, that means people will question the decision. Is it fair? Is it about following the law in a difficult case? Or is it about favoritism and the return of favors?
 |
That’s why judges’ and especially Justices’ behavior must remain above reproach. It’s not about them, it’s about the institution and the integrity of our democratic institutions. Justices should not sacrifice the public’s confidence in the Supreme Court by indulging their personal grievances. Among the Judicial Canons of Ethics that cover the conduct of all federal judges other than the Supreme Court are the following:
“A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary: An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.”
“A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities
(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment … ”
“A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity … A judge should not …make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.”
These are sensible rules that are not unduly restrictive, designed to ensure the public’s ability to have confidence in an independent judiciary. Judges who are appointed to life tenure in these important and powerful roles voluntarily agree to abide by these restrictions, and they take an oath to uphold their obligations. These rules don’t come as a surprise to any judge. Justice Alito served as a Court of Appeals Judge in the Third Circuit for 16 years, where he was bound by these ethical cannons. It’s not like he doesn’t understand why and how this works.
Alexander is about a racial gerrymander hiding in plain sight as a political one. The Court decided the case in a way that makes it very difficult to prevail on a racial gerrymandering claim, even in egregious circumstances. It’s easy to see how Black voters in South Carolina who are faced with diminished voting power, and others who care about voting rights, are left with the distinct feeling that something is wrong in South Carolina. And on the Supreme Court.
After the oral argument last October, I wrote, “So, while the issue in Alexander is whether South Carolina map is an unlawful racial gerrymander, the real issue is whether the Supreme Court is willing to protect the rights of voters.” A Court that is going to decide such weighty issues and have its decision respected and followed must be above reproach. This Court no longer is.
That’s why it’s essential to fix the Court’s problems, even if finding a fix is challenging.
Last November, Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse proposed an ethics fix. He explained, "The honor system has not worked for members of the Roberts Court. My ethics bill would create a transparent process for complaints .... " The problem has only grown worse since then. This week, Senator Whitehouse took to Twitter to urge people to support his Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act. “There’s a common thread here: no investigation. No interviews, no statements, no reports, no nothing. No one ever asks justices what the facts are. Justices speak in right-wing media or leak through sources, but no official statements where you tell the truth or face penalties,” he wrote.
Forty-five House Democrats sent Justice Alito a letter earlier this week, demanding he recuse from January 6 cases. He will not, but we now know who to support with our votes: officials who are doing what’s right. We can insist that all of our elected officials to back Senator Whitehouse’s bill and refuse to let this issue fade away. The ethics bill must become the law. Even though there are separation of powers concerns, experts at the Brennan Center (where, full disclosure, I have recently become a senior fellow) have concluded that Congress can legislate where SCOTUS is concerned, finding that ethics rule for the Supreme Court would act as “guardrails against corruption and abuse of power in coequal branches of government,” and would “comport with the principle of checks and balances fundamental to our constitutional system.”
We cannot let this go. We need a court that we have confidence in, not because we expect them to always rule the way we, as individuals, want them to, but because we need to have confidence when they don’t that they are acting in a fair manner and doing justice.
We’re in this together,
Joyce
Friday, August 4, 2023
RSN: Tim Dickinson and Jana Winter | Trump Extremists Make New Calls to Hang Mike Pence: 'Watch His Toes Dangle'
04 August 23
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
Authorities are monitoring for a spike in extreme rhetoric online, wary of it crossing over into real-life violence
Pence plays a starring role in the new indictment of Donald Trump, which quotes Trump telling Pence, “You’re too honest” after the vice president refused to block certification of Joe Biden’s presidential win.
And Pence met the news of the indictment with harsh criticism of Trump, now a rival for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. Pence tweeted that “anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States.”
Special prosecutor Jack Smith’s indictment also recalls how Trump, unable to convince Pence to become a co-conspirator in his despotic plot to steal the presidency, instead unleashed a mob of MAGA supporters against him. “At the Capitol,” the court document reads, “members of the crowd chanted, ‘Hang Mike Pence!’; ‘Where is Pence? Bring him out!’; and ‘Traitor Pence!’”
Such dark sentiments against Pence now have been revived, at an online forum that played a key role for plotters of the unrest of Jan. 6. TheDonald is a Reddit like forum for the Trumpiest of the Trump faithful. Both individual posts, and the comments on them, rise based on the “upvoting” of users, giving a glimpse into the collective psyche of the community.
The top comment on the Pence post called for divine retribution against the “traitor.” It reads: “May GOD Strike him down for his lies and treachery to the American People.” But as other commenters piled on, they fantasized about a public execution of Pence at a gallows. “I want to watch his toes dangle in the breeze,” wrote user BigMikesHairyDong.
“I want to stand beside you as witness,” wrote user Totally_Passable adding, “I want to pull the lever.” This user made clear he didn’t want the violence to end with Pence: “I long for the day we the people pull these traitors… out of their seats screaming, knowing full well what is coming to them, and why its coming.”
Instead of recoiling at the call to execute Pence, other users joined the call for mob violence. “No long drops,” said another user, echoing many of the replies. “Humane execution should be off the table.”
Extremist MAGAdonians soon became baroque in their dark fantasies of how Pence might get hanged, with one adding a second-amendment twist: “Make it like an adult version of the pool drop kids play at parties,” suggested user bubadmt. “Except you take the shot at a target from 200 yards away, a bullseye releases the trap door.”
It may be tempting to dismiss such comments as wingnuts blowing off steam, rather than as indicative of genuine violent sentiments. But TheDonald — which bills itself “a high-energy rally for supporters of President Trump” — has a dark history.
The site began as a popular subReddit, r/TheDonald, but got booted from Reddit for “rule-breaking content” that went unchallenged by moderators who “refused to meet our most basic expectations.” The forum then shifted to a standalone site at TheDonald.win. And there, as detailed by the Jan. 6 Committee’s final report, it became a hub of plotting for the unrest at the Capitol, and a place where members of the then-Trump administration monitored their success in firing up the base.
The Select Committee report notes:
Users on TheDonald.win discussed: surrounding and occupying the U.S. Capitol; cutting off access tunnels used by Members of Congress; the types of weapons they should bring; and even how to build a hangman’s gallows. The parallels to what transpired on January 6th are obvious.
TheDonald was briefly shuttered by the website owner in the wake of the chaos and violence of Jan. 6, but was, in short order, rebooted by former co-moderators at its current url Patriots.win. The site’s current management did not reply to a request for comment about the threats to Pence.
A senior federal law enforcement official told Rolling Stone that the government is poised to respond to credible threats of violence. “We are seeing an uptick in calls for violence right before and since yesterday’s trump indictment. Most of them are directed at the prosecutors and judge,” says the official. “We are tracking online chatter and calls for violence looking for specific credible threats.” A different government official tells Rolling Stone that senior leadership in the Biden administration is being briefed on the calls for violence and will continue to be briefed, especially if the threat landscape changes and there is a further increase in threats.
Pence is not the only object of seething online anger in the wake of the new indictment. SITE Intelligence, a group that tracks online extremist activity, has flagged online calls for “civil war” and “armed revolution” to avenge Trump, as well as “open threats” to both special counsel Jack Smith and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who will be handling the case.
On Wednesday, Trump supporters called for assassinating members of the grand jury that returned the most recent indictment against the former president. On the social media site Gettr, users urged others to buy more guns to attack the special counsel and jury members, according to a SITE Intelligence report sent to law enforcement agencies. “Jack Smith just pissed off 200 million Americans with guns,” one person wrote on Gettr. “Buy more guns! We’re going to need them,” posted another. There were also calls on a Telegram channel associated with QAnon conspiracy extremists to attack Washington D.C. “DC needs to be destroyed,” one user wrote. “Time to burn it down!!!!”
The day-to-day content at TheDonald has recently strayed, somewhat, from an obsessive focus on Donald Trump, with users avidly participating instead in the culture wars and in particular the conservative panic about trans Americans.
But whenever Trump runs into new legal trouble, the forum snaps back to form, in extreme defense of a man they refer to as GEOTUS or “God Emperor of the United States.” When Trump’s first federal indictment was unsealed in June, forum users called for mass slaughter of the former president’s enemies.
“The only way this country ever becomes anything like the Constitution says this country should be,” wrote one extremist MAGA supporter, “is if thousands of traitorous rats are publicly executed.”
U.S. aircraft carrier in Persian Gulf. (photo: AP)
ALSO SEE: Ukraine Investigating Attacks on Grain Ports as Potential War Crimes
"EDITOR'S NOTE: The U.S. is ramping up its military presence in the Persian Gulf to protect the safety of oil export tankers. While at the same moment it refuses to even consider providing any security assistance to Ukrainian grain cargo ships under threat from Russian forces in the Black Sea. It's a stark reveal of U.S. priorities, and the reliability of America as a global security partner."
Since 2019, Iran has seized a series of ships in the strait, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf, as part of its efforts to pressure the West over negotiations regarding its collapsed nuclear deal with world powers. Putting U.S. troops on commercial ships could further deter Iran from seizing vessels — or escalate tensions further.
The contemplated move also would represent an extraordinary commitment in the Mideast by U.S. forces as the Pentagon tries to focus on Russia and China. America didn't even take the step during the so-called “Tanker War,” which culminated with the U.S. Navy and Iran fighting a one-day naval battle in 1988 that was the Navy's largest since World War II.
While officials offered few details of the plan, it comes as thousands of Marines and sailors on both the amphibious assault ship USS Bataan and the USS Carter Hall, a landing ship, are on their way to the Persian Gulf. Those Marines and sailors could provide the backbone for any armed guard mission in the strait, through which 20% of the world’s crude oil passes.
Iran's mission to the United Nations did not respond to a request for comment from AP about the U.S. proposal. Hours later, however, Iran's state-run IRNA news agency acknowledged the proposal, citing this AP report.
Five U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the proposal, acknowledged its broad details. The officials stressed no final decision had been made and that discussions continue between U.S. military officials and America's Gulf Arab allies in the region.
Officials said the Marines and Navy sailors would provide the security only at the request of the ships involved. One official described the process as complex, saying any deployment likely also would require approval of the country under which the ship is flagged and the country under which the owner is registered. So far, that has yet to happen and it might not for some time, the official said.
At the Pentagon, Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder was asked about the plans and would only say that he has no announcements to make on the matter. More broadly, however, he noted that additional ships, aircraft and Marines have been deployed to the Gulf region, making it easier to respond more quickly to any Iranian provocations.
That effort by U.S. and partners, he said, is aimed at ensuring “the Strait of Hormuz remains open, there’s freedom of navigation, and that we’re deterring any type of malign activity.”
And White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, speaking to reporters, underscored the importance of the strait and U.S. concerns about Iranian harassment of vessels there.
“The Strait of Hormuz is a vital seaway that has a huge impact on seaborne trade around the world," Kirby said. "It’s a critical chokepoint in the maritime world. And we have seen threats by Iran to affect that chokepoint.”
Earlier Thursday, Vice Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of the Navy's Mideast-based 5th Fleet, met with the head of the Gulf Cooperation Council. The six-nation bloc includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
While a statement from the GCC about the meeting did not hint at the proposal, it did say that Cooper and officials discussed “strengthening GCC-U.S. cooperation and working with international and regional partners.”
The Bataan and Carter Hall left Norfolk, Virginia, on July 10 on a mission the Pentagon described as being “in response to recent attempts by Iran to threaten the free flow of commerce in the Strait of Hormuz and its surrounding waters.” The ships made a port visit earlier this week at Souda Bay, Greece, drawing closer to the Mideast, according to photographs released by the Navy.
Already, the U.S. has sent A-10 Thunderbolt II warplanes, F-16 and F-35 fighters, as well as the destroyer USS Thomas Hudner, and other warships to the region over Iran’s actions at sea.
The deployment has captured Iran's attention, with its chief diplomat telling neighboring nations that the region doesn't need “foreigners” providing security. On Wednesday, Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard launched a surprise military drill on disputed islands in the Persian Gulf, with swarms of small fast boats, paratroopers and missile units taking part.
The renewed hostilities come as Iran now enriches uranium closer than ever to weapons-grade levels after the collapse of its 2015 nuclear deal. International inspectors also believe it has enough enriched uranium for “several” nuclear bombs if it chose to build them. Iran maintains its program is for peaceful purposes, and U.S. intelligence agencies assess Tehran is not pursuing an atomic bomb.
The U.S. also has pursued ships across the world believed to be carrying sanctioned Iranian oil. Oil industry worries over another seizure by Iran likely has left a ship allegedly carrying Iranian oil stranded off Texas as no company has yet to unload it.
READ MORE 
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, shown in May, said Thursday that the justices are struggling to come up with a code of ethics. (photo: Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)
The court has faced intense criticism over undisclosed free travel by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, prompting calls for reform
“It’s not a secret for me to say, we’ve been discussing this issue, and it won’t be a surprise to know that the nine of us have a variety of views about this — and about most things,” Kagan said, drawing laughter from hundreds of lawyers and judges attending a judicial conference. “We’re nine freethinking individuals.”
The criticism stems from expensive trips taken years ago by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. underwritten by wealthy business executives and not disclosed in required annual financial reports. The two justices have said they did not believe they needed to disclose the travel. But Senate Democrats have backed legislation to impose disclosure rules on the court as strict as those that apply to members of the House and the Senate.
Kagan was careful not to get ahead of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who this spring said the court was continuing “to look at things” to demonstrate to the American public that it adheres to the “highest standards of conduct.” But she provided fresh insight into the struggle to craft a policy distinct from the ethics code that applies to other federal judges.
“It’s a hard thing to figure out exactly how we’re alike and how we’re different from other judges — and it’s hard to get as much consensus as we can in the way that we like to do,” Kagan said during a nearly hour-long conversation with bankruptcy Judge Madeleine C. Wanslee of Arizona and attorney Misty Perry Isaacson, chair of the Lawyer Representatives Coordinating Committee of the 9th Circuit, which hosted the conference.
“But I hope that we will make some progress in the area of the kind that the chief justice talked about and maybe put the question of, ‘what can Congress do and not do,’ maybe take that out of play.” Kagan had also told lawmakers four years ago that Roberts was “seriously” studying the issue, but the justices failed to reach agreement. Two new members have joined the court since then.
Kagan was responding to a question about Alito’s assertion, in an interview published last week, that Congress has no authority to impose an ethics policy on the court. He suggested that other justices agree with his view.
While Congress can regulate aspects of the court’s structure and jurisdiction and controls the court’s budget, Kagan said there are limits. Still, she declined to critique the legislation because the measure is under consideration in Congress, and the question could one day come before the court.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and his Democratic colleagues sent a letter to Roberts on Thursday urging him to ensure that Alito would recuse himself from any case concerning the legislation after his Wall Street Journal interview with an attorney who has a case before the court in the upcoming term.
Roberts has no role in reviewing the recusal decisions his fellow justices make on their own, but the lawmakers said Alito had violated the voluntary ethics guidelines the justices say they follow.
“Justice Alito has already twice violated this admittedly limited Statement on Ethics by ‘creat[ing] an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public,’” according to the letter to Roberts.
A spokesperson for the court did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Kagan is one of three liberal justices on a bench with a conservative supermajority of six. In the term that ended one month ago, she was on the losing side in major 6-3 decisions to eliminate race as a factor in college admissions; to invalidate President Biden’s plan to forgive student loan debt; and to favor religious speech over anti-discrimination laws protecting gay rights.
Kagan reiterated some of her criticism following the term that ended in 2022 when the conservative majority eliminated the nationwide right to abortion, overturning Roe v. Wade after nearly 50 years. That decision was followed by a major decline in public approval of the court, which remains at a record low at 40 percent, according to a new Gallup poll.
In response to a question about declining confidence, Kagan said the court can restore its reputation through restraint and moderation. Justices should not become policymakers, she said, but rather police certain boundaries on policymakers’ activities.
“You create confidence by acting like a court and by doing something that looks recognizably lawlike rather than doing something that looks more political — that looks more like judges are imposing personal preferences,” Kagan said.
“Mostly, it means acting with a certain kind of restraint and acting with a sense that you are not the king of the world,” she added. “You do not get to make policy judgments for the American people.”
The concerns Kagan expressed echoed those in a passionate dissent she read from the bench in June in response to the court’s ruling rejecting Biden’s power to forgive student loan debt. Kagan said the court was making national policy in place of Congress and the executive branch.
“The majority reaches out to decide a matter it has no business deciding,” she wrote. “It blows through a constitutional guardrail intended to keep courts acting like courts.”
She added: “From the first page to the last, today’s opinion departs from the demands of judicial restraint.”
Roberts has defended the court’s legitimacy and responded to the criticism in his majority opinion.
“It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,” he wrote.
Kagan added Thursday that public confidence in the court is further undermined when it disregards stare decisis — the doctrine of sticking to past decisions unless there is a compelling reason that change is required.
She recalled an opinion the late Justice Antonin Scalia assigned to her in an obscure patent law case that allowed her to emphasize the importance of adhering to precedent even when the court thinks a long-standing decision is wrong.
The opinion centered on “the importance of reliability, the importance of predictability and the importance of courts looking like they are doing law rather than kind of willy-nilly imposing their own preferences as the composition of the court changes,” she said. “It’s really become something I go back to a lot in the way I think about the law and the way I write opinions.”
READ MORE 
Ukraine has significantly intensified its counteroffensive on two fronts. (photo: Ukrainian Military)
Ukraine has significantly intensified its counteroffensive on two fronts in southern Ukraine.
U.S. officials claim that the Ukrainian Armed Forces bolstered their forces last week, clearing paths through Russian defense lines and starting to push back Russian troops and artillery.
The Russians are overwhelmed and continue to face issues with logistics, supplies, personnel, and equipment, a Western official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Retired Air Force General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, commenting on the Ukrainian counteroffensive, expressed confidence that the advances made by Ukraine will put Russia in a disadvantageous position.
“The Ukrainians are now in a position where they understand how they want to use their forces. And we are beginning to see the Russians retreat,” he said.
As for the counteroffensive by the Ukrainian Armed Forces, the latest news indicates that a new phase has begun. The main thrust is directed toward the southeast, where Ukrainian forces are gradually advancing through minefields and facing attacks from Russian aviation, said the NYT.
Ukraine has altered its tactics after the initial chaos of the counteroffensive, reports the Financial Times. Now, the Ukrainian Armed Forces are focusing on striking Russian defensive positions with heavy artillery and are achieving tangible results.
Earlier, the General Staff reported that during offensive operations near Avdiyivka, the Ukrainian Armed Forces dislodged Russian invaders from positions south of the city.
READ MORE 
Tennessee state Reps. Justin Jones, left, and Justin J. Pearson during a demonstration April 18 in Nashville, Tennessee. (photo: Jason Kempin)
Tennessee Democrats Expelled by GOP Over Protests Win Back Their Seats
Adam Edelman, NBC News
Edelman writes: "Republican legislators expelled Justin Jones and Justin J. Pearson in unprecedented state House votes in April, drawing national attention and accusations of racism."
Republican legislators expelled Justin Jones and Justin J. Pearson in unprecedented state House votes in April, drawing national attention and accusations of racism.
Justin Jones won his election for his state House seat in Nashville, and Justin J. Pearson won his race in Memphis, according to AP projections.
Jones defeated Republican Laura Nelson, while Pearson won his race against independent candidate Jeff Johnston.
Both lawmakers had been reinstated by local government officials shortly after their expulsion in April, but they still had to run for their old seats — both in primary elections in June and in Thursday’s general elections.
While Jones and Pearson were heavily favored to win — each of their districts comprise heavily Democratic areas — their electoral success nevertheless delivered a resounding message to Republicans in the state Legislature that the lawmakers continue to enjoy robust support.
Their return may also provide momentum for Democrats and other lawmakers who support gun measures, ahead of a special legislative session scheduled later this month that Gov. Bill Lee, a Republican, called specifically to address gun reform.
Jones, in a tweet shortly after the AP projected his victory, addressed Republican House Speaker Cameron Sexton, who led the expulsion hearings, and signaled that he would continue pushing for gun legislation during the special session.
"Well, Mr. Speaker, the People have spoken. The FIND OUT era of politics is just beginning. See you August 21st for special session," Jones tweeted.
Pearson, too, signaled he would work to organize further protests supporting gun reform, as well as efforts to advance the issue, during the upcoming special session.
“This is only the beginning for this Movement. We will organize, mobilize and activate to work tirelessly for the day when there are no more calls to respond to mass shootings and gun violence," he said in a statement. "I look forward to heading back to the Tennessee state capitol Aug. 21 for the special session on gun legislation. We, the People, will march, rally and work to pass legislation."
The general election victories by Jones and Pearson on Thursday night are the latest developments in an ongoing and chaotic saga within the Tennessee state government.
Following the mass shooting at The Covenant School in Nashville in March — which left six people dead, including three 9-year-olds — Jones, Pearson and another state House lawmaker led supporters in a protest on the chamber floor that called for stricter gun safety measures.
A bullhorn was used, in violation of rules for the House chamber, and the legislators were gathered in an area on the House floor without being recognized to speak. House leaders at the time called their actions “an insurrection.”
Republican state House legislators then took the exceptionally rare step of voting to expel Jones and Pearson, who are both Black, over their role in the protests. But the vote to expel a third Democrat who was involved in the protest — Rep. Gloria Johnson, who is white — fell short, leading to accusations of racism.
The ordeal drew national attention to racial dynamics in the Tennessee Legislature and elevated the national profile of the “Tennessee Three.”
Jones and Pearson have shared that their expulsions led to fundraising windfalls for both of them, while Johnson is expected to challenge U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., in 2024.
In the weeks following their expulsions, Democrats in Washington rallied around the lawmakers. Vice President Kamala Harris traveled to Nashville after the expulsions, praising them for “channeling” their constituents’ voices in speaking out against gun violence, while President Joe Biden invited them to visit the White House.
Both expelled lawmakers, however, were quickly reinstated to their seats by local government officials, leaving Republicans with little to show aside from the bad publicity.
The Nashville Metropolitan Council voted to return Jones to the state Legislature, and members of the Shelby County Board of Commissioners unanimously approved reinstating Pearson at a special meeting in Memphis.
READ MORE 
Texas Department of Public Safety troopers ride past buoys while patrolling the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass, July 29, 2023. (photo: Adrees Latif/Reuters)
It was the first of two bodies found in the water boundary between the United States and Mexico. The second was found three miles upstream from the border buoys in Eagle Pass. Mexican officials identified one of them as a child from Honduras.
The U.S. and Mexican governments have been warning of dire consequences since Texas placed the thousand foot string of buoys in the water to deter migrants from crossing in Eagle Pass, a hot spot for illegal crossings.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador condemned the deaths at his daily news conference Thursday. "This is inhumane and no person should be treated like this," he said.
This section of the Rio Grande near Eagle Pass is already one of the most dangerous areas to cross due to changing currents, and the buoys and razor wire Texas has installed along the river have only made it more dangerous.
It's the latest escalation in Gov. Greg Abbott's Operation Lone Star, a controversial $4 billion border security program that has tested the limits of a state's ability to enforce immigration laws.
Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw claimed the barrier wasn't to blame for the deaths. He said that “preliminary information suggests this individual drowned upstream from the marine barrier and floated into the buoys.”
A spokesperson for Abbott took issue with López Obrador's comments.
”The Mexican government is flat-out wrong,” Abbott spokesman Andrew Mahaleris responded in a statement. “Unfortunately, drownings in the Rio Grande by people attempting to cross illegally are all too common.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security spokesperson called the deaths "heartbreaking" and said they should be investigated.
"It is critical that we manage our border in a safe and humane way that respects the dignity of every human being and keeps our communities safe," said DHS Spokesman Erin Heeter in a statement. "We can both enforce our laws and treat human beings with dignity."
Democratic lawmakers and humanitarian rights groups have previously called buoys and installation of razor wire "barbaric."
The U.S. Justice Department sued the state of Texas last month over Abbott's refusal to remove the barrier, which stretches the length of three football fields.
In affidavits released as part of the filing, Mexican officials expressed concerns that the buoys could lead to a loss of life and provoke an international incident. They also said the barrier has already caused significant harm in diplomatic foreign relations between the two countries.
"We reiterate the position of the Mexican government that the placement of the buoys from Texas authorities is a violation of our sovereignty," Mexico's foreign affairs secretary said in a press release in Spanish. "We express our concerns that these policies will have over the impact on human rights and the safety of migrants."
The Justice Department is asking for an injunction to require Texas to remove the buoys within 10 days and to block Abbott from installing any more river barriers without prior approval from the Army Corps of Engineers.
READ MORE 
Naughton coal-fired power plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming. (photo: AP)
Republican super PACs in the House and Senate raked in major donations from the fossil fuel industry this year. Proving to be money well spent, GOP lawmakers are ramping up a campaign of outright climate denial.
As the donations poured in, Republican lawmakers began adding fine print to congressional spending bills that would hobble the federal government’s efforts to combat climate change.
The Congressional Leadership Fund, which backs GOP House candidates, reported receiving more than $950,000 from oil and gas firms and executives during the first half of the year. The donors included top executives at the firms Energy Transfer Partners, United Refining Company, and Midland Energy, whose CEO, Syed Javaid Anwar, contributed $125,000.
In total, the Congressional Leadership Fund has hauled in more than $19 million so far this year. The group’s communications director boasted this month that the combined haul with its dark money arm, the American Action Network, is significantly outpacing GOP fundraising at this point in the last election cycle.
The Senate GOP’s super PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund, has received $2.8 million this year from just three fossil fuel firms: Occidental Petroleum Corporation, whose largest shareholder is billionaire investor Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Corporation; Denver-based Anschutz Exploration Corporation; and Texas-based refiner Valero Energy Corporation.
Exempt from campaign contribution limits, the two super PACs are fundraising juggernauts for the national GOP. During the last election cycle, the Senate Leadership Fund launched the most expensive-ever advertising campaign for GOP Senate candidates after raising nearly $290 million.
The Congressional Leadership Fund helped Republicans retake the House with a $260 million war chest for TV and digital ads, mailers, polling, and other outside spending. Of that total, $27 million was from fossil fuel donors, whose dollars helped the super PAC boost its fundraising well above its 2020 total of $165 million.
Oil and gas companies were among the corporate interests that continued giving generously to the GOP’s House fundraising arm even after members it backed voted to overturn the 2020 election results, as the Lever reported previously.
Fossil Fuel Money In, Climate Denial Out
For fossil fuel interests, recent GOP donations proved to be money well spent. As ecological tipping points approach, and some two-thirds of Americans now worry about what climate change will mean for them personally, congressional Republicans are continuing a campaign of outright climate denial.
In April, as congressional Republicans advanced legislation that would clear the way for new oil and gas infrastructure, Valero contributed $250,000 each to the House and Senate GOP super PACs. The company also reported spending $60,000 lobbying the House and Senate on “issues related to infrastructure permitting,” among other topics.
While the push for “permitting reform” stalled, the deal reached by the Joe Biden administration and congressional Republicans in May to raise the federal debt limit included a provision expediting the controversial Mountain Valley Pipeline — which opponents say will cause emissions equivalent to twenty-six new coal-fired power plants — and shielding the project from further legal challenges.
Valero reported lobbying on permitting issues in the debt ceiling deal, as did Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners, whose billionaire chairman Kelcy Warren gave $5,000 to the Congressional Leadership Fund in March. Energy Transfer also donated $2 million to the fund last year.
While neither Valero nor Energy Transfer are among the consortium of companies involved with the Mountain Valley Pipeline, both companies have faced their own recent permitting woes. In 2021, legal challenges and intense public opposition halted a planned pipeline that would have transported crude oil from Valero’s Memphis, Teneessee, refinery to Mississippi for export — but local activists fear the company is looking for a way to revive the project. And Energy Transfer, the company behind the fiercely contested Dakota Access Pipeline, is currently at odds with the Biden administration over the denial of a permit for a planned liquefied natural gas export terminal in Louisiana.
More fossil fuel money flowed to the GOP fundraising arms in June, which set its own temperature records before July became Earth’s hottest recorded month. OTA Holdings, a subsidiary of the Louisiana oil and gas company Enterprise Products Partners, donated half a million dollars to the Congressional Leadership Fund that month.
Soon after, House Republicans began inserting numerous provisions into annual spending bills that would effectively bar the federal government from combating or even researching climate change, including measures requiring offshore oil and gas leasing and blocking the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposed climate disclosure rule.
That strategy could force a showdown with Senate Democrats when members return from an August recess. Congress has until October 1 to pass the annual spending bills and avoid a government shutdown. Both Valero and Energy Transfer reported lobbying directly on an energy and water development appropriations bill that would cut the budget for the Energy Department’s renewables office and block the implementation of some energy efficiency standards.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER..... OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHIM! ...
-
LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER..... OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHIM! ALL PO...
-
LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER..... OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHIM! A...
