#corrupt SCOTUS
Text
SCOTUS will probably put off making their decision until after the elections. If Trump wins, they could then rule in favor of presidential immunity. If Biden wins, they certainly wouldn't.
I don't think any POTUS should have a get out of jail free card for whatever they decide to do while in office, so I'm fine with Biden not having immunity.
Trump having immunity would be the end of democracy in the US.
SCOTUS should not have the power to determine whether or not democracy survives.
#corrupt scotus#reform the court#vote blue#vote democrat#vote blue to save democracy#vote biden#democracy#social democracy#democratic socialism#democrats now socialism later#vote blue 2024#vote biden/harris#biden/harris 2024
20 notes
·
View notes
Text
Scotus is not the only judicial level willing to protect Trump outside of their oath sworn to uphold the law!
216 notes
·
View notes
Photo
(via Cartoon: Royal court)
69 notes
·
View notes
Text
Supreme Court poised to appoint federal judges to run the US economy.
January 18, 2024
ROBERT B. HUBBELL
JAN 17, 2024
The Supreme Court heard oral argument on two cases that provide the Court with the opportunity to overturn the “Chevron deference doctrine.” Based on comments from the Justices, it seems likely that the justices will overturn judicial precedent that has been settled for forty years. If they do, their decision will reshape the balance of power between the three branches of government by appointing federal judges as regulators of the world’s largest economy, supplanting the expertise of federal agencies (a.k.a. the “administrative state”).
Although the Chevron doctrine seems like an arcane area of the law, it strikes at the heart of the US economy. If the Court were to invalidate the doctrine, it would do so in service of the conservative billionaires who have bought and paid for four of the justices on the Court. The losers would be the American people, who rely on the expertise of federal regulators to protect their water, food, working conditions, financial systems, public markets, transportation, product safety, health care services, and more.
The potential overruling of the Chevron doctrine is a proxy for a broader effort by the reactionary majority to pare the power of the executive branch and Congress while empowering the courts. Let’s take a moment to examine the context of that effort.
But I will not bury the lead (or the lede): The reactionary majority on the Court is out of control. In disregarding precedent that conflicts with the conservative legal agenda of its Federalist Society overlords, the Court is acting in a lawless manner. It is squandering hard-earned legitimacy. It is time to expand the Court—the only solution that requires a simple majority in two chambers of Congress and the signature of the president.
The “administrative state” sounds bad. Is it?
No. The administrative state is good. It refers to the collective body of federal employees, regulators, and experts who help maintain an orderly US economy. Conservatives use the term “administrative state” to denigrate federal regulation and expertise. They want corporations to operate free of all federal restraint—free to pollute, free to defraud, free to impose dangerous and unfair working conditions, free to release dangerous products into the marketplace, and free to engage in deceptive practices in public markets.
The US economy is the largest, most robust economy in the world because federal regulators impose standards for safety, honesty, transparency, and accountability. Not only is the US economy the largest in the world (as measured by nominal GDP), but its GDP per capita ($76,398) overshadows that of the second largest economy, China ($12,270). The US dollar is the reserve currency for the world and its markets are a haven for foreign investment and capital formation. See The Top 25 Economies in the World (investopedia.com)
US consumers, banks, investment firms, and foreign investors are attracted to the US economy because it is regulated. US corporations want all the benefits of regulations—until regulations get in the way of making more money. It is at that point that the “administrative state” is seen as “the enemy” by conservatives who value profit maximization above human health, safety, and solvency.
It is difficult to comprehend how big the US economy is. To paraphrase Douglas Adams’s quote about space, “It’s big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is.” Suffice to say, the US economy is so big it cannot be regulated by several hundred federal judges with dockets filled with criminal cases and major business disputes.
Nor can Congress pass enough legislation to keep pace with ever changing technological and financial developments. Congress can’t pass a budget on time; the notion that it would be able to keep up with regulations necessary to regulate Bitcoin trading in public markets is risible.
What is the Chevron deference doctrine?
Managing the US economy requires hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts—a.k.a. “regulators”—who bring order, transparency, and honesty to the US economy. Those experts must make millions of judgments each year in creating, implementing and applying federal regulations.
And this is where the “Chevron deference doctrine” comes in. When federal experts and regulators interpret federal regulations in esoteric areas such as maintaining healthy fisheries, their decisions should be entitled to a certain amount of deference. And they have received such deference since 1984, when the US Supreme Court created a rule of judicial deference to decisions by federal regulators in the case of Chevron v. NRDC.
What happened at oral argument?
In a pair of cases, the US Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday as to whether the Chevron deference doctrine should continue—or whether the Court should overturn the doctrine and effectively throw out 17,000 federal court decisions applying the doctrine. According to Court observers, including Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, the answer is “Yes, the Court is poised to appoint federal judges as regulators of the US economy.” See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court is seizing more power from Democratic presidents. (slate.com)
I recommend Stern’s article for a description of the grim atmosphere at the oral argument—kind of “pre-demise” wake for the Chevron deference doctrine. Stern does a superb job of explaining the effects of overruling Chevron:
Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.
The Kochs and the Federalist Society have bought and paid for this sad outcome. The chaos that will follow will hurt consumers, travelers, investors, patients and—ultimately—American businesses, who will no longer be able to rely on federal regulators for guidance as to the meaning of federal regulations. Instead, businesses will get an answer to their questions after lengthy, expensive litigation before overworked and ill-prepared judges implement a political agenda.
Expand the Court. Disband the reactionary majority by relegating it to an irrelevant minority. If we win control of both chambers of Congress in 2024 and reelect Joe Biden, expanding the Court should be the first order of business.
[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]
#Corrupt SCOTUS#Robert B. Hubbell#Robert b. Hubbell Newsletter#Expand the Court#Chevron deference#regulatory agencies#consumer protection#government by Federalist Society
77 notes
·
View notes
Text
The oligarchs are taking over in plain sight and nobody is organized to fight back. Nobody even cares.
🎩
97 notes
·
View notes
Text
This Supreme Court is illegitimate and deeply corrupt
Two years after John Roberts' confirmation as the Supreme Court's chief justice in 2005, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, made a pivot. After a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, she refashioned herself as a legal recruiter, a matchmaker who pairs job-hunting lawyers up with corporations and firms.
Roberts told a friend that the change was motivated by a desire to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest, given that her husband was now the highest-ranking judge in the country. "There are many paths to the good life," she said. "There are so many things to do if you're open to change and opportunity."
"When I found out that the spouse of the chief justice was soliciting business from law firms, I knew immediately that it was wrong," the whistleblower, Kendal B. Price, who worked alongside Jane Roberts at the legal recruiting firm Major, Lindsey & Africa, told Insider in an interview. "During the time I was there, I was discouraged from ever raising the issue. And I realized that even the law firms who were Jane's clients had nowhere to go. They were being asked by the spouse of the chief justice for business worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, and there was no one to complain to. Most of these firms were likely appearing or seeking to appear before the Supreme Court. It's natural that they'd do anything they felt was necessary to be competitive."
Roberts' apparent $10.3 million in compensation puts her toward the top of the payscale for legal headhunters. Price's disclosures, which were filed under federal whistleblower-protection laws and are now in the hands of the House and Senate Judiciary committees, add to the mounting questions about how Supreme Court justices and their families financially benefit from their special status, an area that Senate Democrats are vowing to investigate after a series of disclosure lapses by the justices themselves.
(continue reading)
#politics#scotus#john roberts#jane roberts#justice for sale#capitalism#crony capitalism#corrupt scotus#corrupt system#pay to play#lawyers#legal
242 notes
·
View notes
Text
Corrupt Supreme Court in their boss's shoes.
#politics#supreme court#corrupt supreme court#corrupt scotus#brett kavanaugh#amy coney barrett#samuel alito#clarence thomas#neil gorsuch#our supreme court is now an arm of the Republican party
27 notes
·
View notes
Text
SCOTUS is SUPREMELY CORRUPT!
20 notes
·
View notes
Text
instagram
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Lifelong appointments based on perjury should be disqualifying. What other occupation would allow such corruption/lack of ethics?
466 notes
·
View notes
Text
Real change in government takes bold leadership, parties willing to work together for the common good, people in government who understand the levers of bureaucracy and how to make them work, and a good bit of luck. Republican sabotage and fear mongering in the name of their and their scotus agents building the real swamp will always wage war against the american people!
4 notes
·
View notes
Photo
(via Cartoon: Trump property liquidation)
10 notes
·
View notes
Text
LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN
March 4, 2024
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
MAR 5, 2024
Today the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that states cannot remove Donald Trump from the 2024 presidential ballot. Colorado officials, as well as officials from other states, had challenged Trump’s ability to run for the presidency, noting that the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits those who have engaged in insurrection after taking an oath to support the Constitution from holding office. The court concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment leaves the question of enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment up to Congress.
But the court didn’t stop there. It sidestepped the question of whether the events of January 6, 2021, were an insurrection, declining to reverse Colorado’s finding that Trump was an insurrectionist.
In those decisions, the court was unanimous.
But then five of the justices cast themselves off from the other four. Those five went on to “decide novel constitutional questions to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy,” as the three dissenting liberal judges put it. The five described what they believed could disqualify from office someone who had participated in an insurrection: a specific type of legislation.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in one concurrence, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett in another, note that the majority went beyond what was necessary in this expansion of its decision. “By resolving these and other questions, the majority attempts to insulate all alleged insurrectionists from future challenges to their holding federal office,” Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson wrote. Seeming to criticize those three of her colleagues as much as the majority, Barrett wrote: “This is not the time to amplify disagreement with stridency…. [W]ritings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up.”
Conservative judge J. Michael Luttig wrote that “in the course of unnecessarily deciding all of these questions when they were not even presented by the case, the five-Justice majority effectively decided not only that the former president will never be subject to disqualification, but that no person who ever engages in an insurrection against the Constitution of the United States in the future will be disqualified under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Disqualification Clause.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife, Ginni, participated in the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election, notably did not recuse himself from participating in the case.
There is, perhaps, a larger story behind the majority’s musings on future congressional actions. Its decision to go beyond what was required to decide a specific question and suggest the boundaries of future legislation pushed it from judicial review into the realm of lawmaking.
For years now, Republicans, especially Republican senators who have turned the previously rarely-used filibuster into a common tool, have stopped Congress from making laws and have instead thrown decision-making to the courts.
Two days ago, in Slate, legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern noted that when Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was Senate majority leader, he “realized you don’t need to win elections to enact Republican policy. You don’t need to change hearts and minds. You don’t need to push ballot initiatives or win over the views of the people. All you have to do is stack the courts. You only need 51 votes in the Senate to stack the courts with far-right partisan activists…[a]nd they will enact Republican policies under the guise of judicial review, policies that could never pass through the democratic process. And those policies will be bulletproof, because they will be called ‘law.’”
—
LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
#Letters from an American#Heather Cox Richardson#corrupt SCOTUS#illegitimate SCOTUS#14th amendment#election 2024#insurrectionists#Mitch McConnell#J.Michael Luttig
32 notes
·
View notes
Text
#ginni thomas#clarence thomas#compromised#January 6th#insurrection#harlan crow#bribes#fani willis#conflict of interest#corrupt scotus
5 notes
·
View notes
Text
Today, The Supreme Court of the United States voted unanimously to force states to keep Trump on the ballot, despite the 14th Amendment to the Constitution clearly disqualifying him as an insurrectionist oath-breaker.
Worse, a majority of 5-4 voted that no state could EVER remove a Federal candidate- effectively shielding every insurrectionist with a single stroke.
Some thoughts:
This is the absolute death of SCOTUS's legitimacy. Every justice, and I include the "liberal" ones in that, has arguably violated their oaths of office to the Constitution, and earned impeachment. The Supreme Court is increasingly acting as, effectively, an arm of the Republican Party- which is to say, of Trump and Vladimir Putin.
The Constitution does not change because SCOTUS chooses to ignore it, and neither do the oaths of office of officials who swore to uphold it. Any office-holder who's oath was worth more than the paper its printed on has a duty to refuse to recognize Trump's eligibility, regardless of SCOTUS.
I'm calling it now, Biden will win the 2024 election- as he will be the only eligible major party candidate. If the disqualified felon gets more votes... well, I think that very unlikely, but if so he would still be ineligible, and see above re duty of officials not to recognize or obey him.
This makes it all the more vital that Biden win the most votes and electors, to avoid a catastrophic Constitutional crisis where there is no clearly legitimate President-elect.
We must prepare for further SCOTUS rulings ignoring the Constitution to advance fascism, including a possible ruling that Trump has immunity for crimes he committed, and attempts to overturn the election if Republicans don't win.
Voting is still vital. Best case scenario, Trump loses by such a landslide Republicans can't overturn it on a technicality, and don't dare try. Worst case scenario, it will help motivate people, and provide further moral and democratic legitimacy to resist a MAGA coup attempt.
Prepare to resist. I want to be very clear that I am NOT advocating for violent resistance here, and this is not merely a disclaimer for legal purposes. There are very few evils worse than civil conflict, it often hurts the most vulnerable worst, and it and rarely leads to a swift or equitable solution, and the side that leaps to it first will lose a great deal of legitimacy and support. If there is violence, let MAGA fire first, not us. But Blue state officials need to be preparing to resist a Trumpian coup attempt. And every patriotic America needs to be preparing for mass protest and acts of civil disobedience come November. If you are in a union, look into what plans, if any, your union has made to call a general strike should Republicans attempt a coup (some unions made such plans in 2020, which were never activated).
#US#Politics#2024#Election#SCOTUS#Corrupt SCOTUS#Republican SCOTUS#Traitor SCOTUS#Impeach SCOTUS#Trump#P01135809#Insurrectionist#Disqualified#14th Amendment#Section Three#Colorado#Illinois#Maine#Unionize#General Strike#Vote#Joe Biden#Biden/Harris 2024#Vote Blue
4 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
lover4everr
Love Live
clind-oeil
Clin d'oeil
gendersdgjpn
SDG ジェンダー平等
exoticroyalties
👑EXOTIC BELLE 💕