There are so many things to be sad about in our U.S. government, but I posit that the Supreme Court is #1. I'm 77 and I grew up believing that at least we had an institution that was moral and ethical above all else. I was young but I remember Earl Warren and knowing little, looking up to a great institution that set America truly apart in the world of nations. Pending? The Court is already dead.
I thought so too! But that hasn't been true for at least 20 years. The only time EVER that I cried due to an election outcome was when the Supreme Court OVERRODE the Florida Supreme Court to hand "W" the presidency! I knew that was WRONG, CORRUPT. I knew at that moment something was terribly wrong with our governing body that ALLOWED that. I knew, somewhere deep inside, that the US was a different country than the one I knew growing up. Yeah, I'll be 76 next month and lived in a different country than the one we're terrified of now.
Claire! Terrified is the right word as I'm about the same age as you and can easily recall when the GOP was a viable political party represented by such as Eisenhower. (In my opinion, things started going off the rails with Reagan and, by now, there aren't any rails left and the train is just teetering through drought-stricken wastelands.) I wonder whether anyone at the Supreme Court will even raise an eyebrow at the fact that a wealthy private citizen with absolutely no position in any branch of government has taken it upon himself to conduct foreign affairs with a hostile foreign leader solely for his own benefit (a clear violation of the Constitution and rule of law and a threat to us all). Is anyone at the Supreme Court disturbed by this or are some of them (and the GOPers in Congress) okay with the idea that a private individual has decided to conduct foreign relations on his lonesome?
Lanae, the GOP is okay with anyone and anything that gives them raw, unrelenting power. They have long ago sold out the American people to that aim. I was bitterly disappointed to see that Mark Kelly (Dem Arizona) voted with Sinema and Manchin against a Biden nominee for labor. He was qualified, a good guy, but he professed policies that protected gig workers and things like that. All it took was 3 conservative Dems who are protecting the employers, not employees. After all, it's the employers, companies that keep them in power. And yes, things went off the rails with Reagan for sure, but had started before that. Two watershed moments happened for me that I can see, and felt then, would change this country. 1) The minute Reagan became president he fired an entire labor segment, the air traffic controllers in one fell swoop. A moment I froze, again, deep down I knew that was really awful and would reverberate in our society. 2) When the Supreme Court overrode the Florida Supreme Court awarding "W" the presidency. Totally uncalled for and completely corrupt. Had the Florida Supreme Court made that call Gore would likely have been president, basically he won Florida, the SC knew it and the Florida SC knew it. In my mind, always, that, to me was our first stolen election. And look where we are; our airways are filled with right wing, white supremacist, Christian dogma talking points robbing our freedom, our basic rights. Christian nationalism is cruel, white Supremacy violent. The GOP (yes, GOP!) welcomes political violence to stay in power. This isn't conservatism. You and I are both old enough to know what that is. Look where the 2000 Supreme Court took us? Where are we going NOW?
You didn't think they were going off the rails with Tricky Dicky? Or maybe you just forgot about him. I do admit, he isn't worth remembering. But the train left the track when he was president. Obama righted it, I thought. He was the best president the US ever had, in this non-American's opinion. But then they lameducked him, and the train went off the other side. Following the best president ever was the worst president ever! With America divided as it is today, I see no hope. Humpty Dumty has fallen.
Actually, when I think back on my time, I think the train started going off the rails with the assassination of JFK. The reason I first thought about Reagan was that my Dad was a tax accountant for an independent cpa. ("What does that have to do with anything?" you may be asking!). Well, my Dad knew from the get-go that the trickle-down theory, that is, the idea that tax breaks and write-offs at the top would percolate down to the folks in the lower-and middle class, would NEVER work. My Dad knew that wealthy people are, by being wealthy, not inclined to part with a penny of their wealth, especially since they did nothing to earn it but cheat, lie, and swindle. He used to say, everytime he saw Reagan: "This'll never work." It's little comfort to know that he was right but, well, in my family we knew it would go this way and that it was a bad development, not just for us but for everyone of modest or little income. The reason I did not think about Nixon was that well, I guess, the slide was already going on and that, with Reagan, it really got going. I never felt anything negative about Obama as I think he did fairly well with the hand he was dealt....Joe was dealt the worst hand of all (I think), coming after the worst pres in the history of the world...if only we could have someone like Pres Zelenskyy but, well, we might already have that as I believe Biden is also doing pretty well with the terrible hand he got. I imagine that, if ever we get out of this, it will be because the govt woke up and decided to pursue a full accounting of just what Trump did and what should be the response....because of his fixation on windmills, I have concluded that he probably should be sent to an institution for the criminally insane and never let out....maybe Putin could be in an adjoining cell.
Sounds like a good place for him. But he is white and male, though not Christian. He will find a way out of it if there is one. With luck, there isn't it.
You are right Jan. I am so concerned for my children (one turning 50 this year and the others in their early to late 40's) and grandchildren who are just starting out. Personal important basic human rights are being taken away and trampled and economic opportunity is disappearing rapidly. More than 58 countries have some form of universal health care, many countries offer family leave, etc. Nothing good, progressive or positive is happening anymore and hasn't for about the last 40 years, the start of neoliberal economic policies. The end of the "common good>"
Yes! When you say 40 years. you're back to Reagan. With Reagan in charge, progressive ideas--the idea of using govt to help people live better and more secure lives--went out the window as Reagan sold people on the idea that the wealthy people would help the poorer classes once they were allowed to keep more of their wealth. The top tax rates dwindled and dwindled down to virtually nothing as more and more tax loopholes and benefits went to the wealthy. At the same time, nothing ever trickled down so the lower and middle classes ended up footing more and more of the bill until they had nothing left. I don't know if we'll ever see a progressive take on revenues and taxes as every time Biden tries, he meets stiff opposition from the wealthies (of course). I think Bernie Sanders has tried his level-best but, at this point, he's as stymied as he ever was. I would ask any GOPer what he or she thinks the GOP has done for them or what legislation they've offered. They seem fairly good at batting down what the Dems come up with but they have no agenda of their own beyond defending someone who never should have been elected and now appears to have been directly involved in a coup. I had hoped we would have gotten to the public hearings by now but apparently this is more involved than I thought...hope it will be worth the wait and spell the end of a presidential career that never should have been.
Claire: I agree. When the Republican Court ruled giving the White House to the Bushman, he was elected by one vote of the Court. While I have perspectives and principles, I have tried to follow the Florida case closely, with some scientific scrutiny and objectivity. My only decision is unless or until the uncounted ballots are counted we will not know who won. The Bushman might have won, Gore might have won but until the votes are counted we will never know for sure.
I think it's important to remember that Al Gore conceded to Bush in the end. That is, he put the concern for national unity and the good of the nation ahead of his own victory/defeat in that specific election. That speaks volumes about Gore as a candidate for the highest public office in the country. Lamentably, the GOP persisted in its win-at-all-costs approach to elections, with the result of disunity and strife and continual conflict and an even more unfortunate (treasonous?) leader than Bush ever was. (I previously thought that there could be no worse public servant than George W Bush. Alas, I was wrong.) Perhaps Al Gore was the president who might have been; perhaps he was never the duly-elected president. However it turned out, we got the worst of all possible worlds and things went downhill, rapidly after Obama tried to put us back on track. We are now faced with the spectre of an ex-president who is more than willing to commit treason (by conspiring with an adversary in the height of conflict) to secure his own ends. That is what the GOP has set us on path to receive.
I am so glad you brought this up, Professor Reich. Chief Justice Roberts’ legacy has a lot riding on how he addresses the issues at hand - indeed, the reputation of the Supreme Court has faltered so much in the last 17 years.
The video of you testifying against Robert’s for the SCOTUS Chief Justice is timeless. Your message is as much (if not more) relevant today as it was in 2005.
Looking forward to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation soon… 🌻
Roberts terminally and positively turned me off and lost any respect I might have had for him when in Citizens United he enshrined the ridiculous notion that corporations are people and have the same rights as people. Then he supported dark, unlimited political donations, and it got worse from there. The man is either dumb as a rock or has a mean, evil streak that's reflected in the GQP members of the court.
What I find remarkable about this guy, among other things, is that he apparently doesn't think through what the effects of his actions might be. For example, what might happen to American politics if people and corporations (using their human voice, of course) could make unlimited financial donations to candidates and parties? He and his minions have been perhaps even worse for American democracy than the former guy, and that's reprehensible in my view.
Porter, I believe totally that he has thought this through. Go find some background on Roberts and look at where he came from. He is doing EXACTLY what he intended when he came on the court. AND, that's WHY he was nominated by conservatives in the Federalist Society. All these right wing conservatives came from there. Robert Reich's testimony underscores what Roberts believed, and his supporters WANTED the SC we are being screwed by today.
If your dream came true (which I would love to see happen), it would put a lot of pressure on Mitch to figure out how to delay consideration of replacements for two, six, maybe even ten years, if he can keep control of the senate that long.
The court has made some fairly terrible decisions as well. Extending persobhood to corporations - ensuring their "speech". Rolling back new deal policies until FDR had to threaten to pack the court.
The judical branch has always been political - fortunately for the country many times in the past justices were able to put their own partisan lense aside and do what was just. However today we have a clown court. Republican nominees have been hyper-partisan since the 90s. Ideology is the primary selector for a party that seeks to disrupt and dismantle central government authority to do anything substanstive for the people in this country and wage political battles over cultural issues to feed a base that cares more about individuals pregancy status than whether children in this country are licing in poverty.
I am not trying to be ageist - but it seems to me that people who lived under the a US government which held the trust of its people believe we can go back to a better time. My entire adult life the president has lied to me, the courts have sided with corporate elite at expense of the people, congress has passed laws for theie real constituents - the moneyed interests in america. And no one st the top is held to account. We ignore the crimes, grift, fraud of the powerful. We ignore the deaths of Yemeni children, Palestinian children.
How can I believe in these institutiond when they have been the driving force of so much suffering, have failed to deliver the goods, have done all they csn to protect themselves and their corporate masters at our expense?
I think the situation is much more dire than these sentiments express. It seems to me that going forward we will need to cut away the rot. Someone will need to sieze the levers of the state, hold our politicans and corporate masters to account.
I was going to write something similar, but your submission hits all points I was going to make. The “rule of law” has become a joke, serving the wealthy, mostly white (I’m mostly white) elite. The sad display of US Senators denigrating Judge Brown-Jackson and railing against the “elite,” a group they all belong to, was embarrassing and despicable. I do think your comment about “seizing the levers of the state” is somewhat troublesome and deserves more discussion or explanation. A leveling of the electorate with certain reforms that enable all of us to vote easily, as most wealthy citizens are able to do, would result, I believe, in the “seizing” of power by the majority of reasonable people. There’s an article in “The Atlantic” about Will Hurd and his dream of a reasonable electorate, well worth reading. He outlines how we could seize the levers!
Thank you Michael Pullen. Especially rending is your statement concerning Yemeni and Palestine. I agree the situation is more dire than any of us realize.
Why hasn't Clarence Thomas been arrested for his actions, which are clearly illegal under federal law??? Recuse himself ???- how about insist on his immediate resignation. He doesn't have one shred of integrity and is a Trump puppet!
My answer to all of your questions here is the Democratic party leadership is afraid to take a stand on anything that may cause them to lose a single voter. I'm talking about President Biden and so called leaders Schumer and Polosi, if tough talk got the job done the r's wouldn't be kicking their teeth in at every turn. IMO the republican party has evolved into a perversion of the functional, capable party it was before Pres. Reagan thru to the 'orange man crazy' it is today and it seems the Democratic party is incapable of exposing that for what it is.
I can offer no solutions, but can wonder, should these leaders have to face a primary challenger to move them out?
Said all that to say, nothing will change with Clarence Thomas and not much backlash for Ginni, I suspect it will fade away like other trumplicon corruption.
We do have 2 republicans on the Jan 6 committee who are still ethical enough to be on that committee. I like to include all the Rs in one basket myself since, well, they are in one basket. But, let's congratulate Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger as true American. I may not like their politics but they are at least ethical human beings. Come on hug a real republican today.
I can't disagree with you about Cheney & Kitzinger. I, too, admire them. The Q-publicans are trying to run them out of the party, too. So, consider my remark modified to include them, as well. I know there are a few more who are taking heat, as well - the ones who haven't announced they're retiring rather than actually taking a stand.
Yes, I'm afraid it seems that the Rs play dirty and the Ds are afraid to strongly counter, even when the Rs are clearly in the wrong. And they don't stick together like the Rs either so they seem inconsistent. They need to unite and speak up. Loudly.
I agree with you. Unfortunatley there is nothing like this that can be done. That is why they are called the supreme court. Congress has to pass legislation and they can't even do that. They can only suggest the supreme court does so. To put it mildly we are in deep dodo unless something vary serios=us can be done to "stop all the steal" in the supreme court system. Maybe we can get drumph to lock them up. Ha, Ha, ha, or in other words LOL.
Dr Reich's morning message provides a little more insight - for me, anyway - as to >why< Jackson is ol' Tweety's favorite president. I had always suspected it was because Pres. Jackass' picture is on the 20! Maybe that was just another reason. (I'd've still preferred the picture be changed to Sacajawea.) Just sayin'. Otherwise, Dr Reich makes it clear that the SCOTUS is embracing its own marginalization. Makes me sort of wonder when all the Q-publicans will need to do is include the language "This law supersedes Constitutional restraint," knowing that the SCOTUS ruling will always be: "Yep! That's what the law says!"
I'm still wonderin' why it's taking Garland so long to move. Time is likely running out.
(Well spoken statement in the video clip. I probably heard it on the news when it was first delivered.)
It'll be interesting to see what the conservative OH SC does with the Republican drafted voter redistricting maps, that they've already ruled as unconstitutional - 3 times! - being resubmitted with a few alleged "tweaks." The Republicans voted down maps drawn by the non-partisan team that the voters voted for in the first place - and the OH SC directed them to use. The OH AG justification is that the Republicans are the ruling party, so they're ruling! I recommend keeping an eye on that fiasco, too.
I think there's far more at stake in marginalizing the SCOTUS than is - at first blush - obvious.
Lets pretend Garland charges Trump. When republicans tske the house and senate in 2022 - they will open investigstions into Hunter Biden. They will ask whynthe justicr deosrtment hasnt chsrgef him for his crimes - and point out hoe corruot the democrsts are.
We as a society are incapable of holding powerful people - the american nobility - to account. Wall street bankers, politicans, hell even soldiers who committed war crimes - none of them held to account.
And this didnt start with Trump. Its always been a problem - but since Clinton turned the Democratic party into a corporate party the problem has expanded.
It has been over 20 years since the 9/11 attack, yet the mastermind of the attack and his 4 co-conspirators have yet to be tried for their crime! During World War II the government tried and executed Nazi saboteurs in only a couple of months. It's not just Garland; our justice system has broken down!
Cool. His laptop has been in federal custody since Trump was in office. Why no charges? His business partner coming out and telling the world thst Biden met with him and Hunter and was knowledgeable of their dealings in china - thst he was "the big guy" and that he was being cut in on these deals - 10% for the big guy.. these deals being msde while biden was vice president.
You think any of that is going to trial? You think Biden is going to sit quietnin the white house while his kid gets prosecuted?
So my point is thst both sides are corrupt - neither wants to tip scales of accountability that in the long term would see themselves held to account. Which means essentially both sides have to hold off on accountability - or you ruin the whole game.
This is why we never get justice - not for war crimes, financial crimes or high crimes. The q-anon shaman can go and sit in jail - but never the financial institutions behind the flint water crisis, never soldiers laughing as they extinguish human life or the commanders who shelter them from prosecution. Never fail sons like Hunter Biden.
@Michael. Innocent until proven guilty. Doing business, even with powerful recommenders, is not necessarily corrupt. Depends on what they were doing. And when you look at the actual crimes by Trump and his ilk that are already proven, well, this chasing of the Bidens really smells funny...
I mean if 50k in a monthly salary to a drug addict to sit on the board of a foreign energy company, and a deals are made cutting in 'the big guy' doesnt perk up your ears i guess we live in different universes.
I think we can agree that both Biden and Trump are corrupt. Our ruling class is corrupt. And our institutions fail to apply the rules to them.
I would love to see either side held to account - but i don't think the system is capable of providing accountability for the ruling class.
The faith and trust in the supreme court is a historical artifact - in reality the court will continue to become more and more partisan - that is part of the plan - capture the courts, make everything a culture war partisan issue.
@Michael. Cynicism is the beginning of the end of discourse. When you say "both sides are corrupt" you are playing into a script written by the corrupt class. They want us to think there is no difference between the parties, no difference between the candidates. Even if you really believed that (maybe you do?!?) I don't believe that any of us should trot out the position papers of one side against the other, particularly when that angle, that perspective, that cynicism tends to demoralize otherwise well-meaning people who will try to make a difference. If you hadn't run the trial in your own mind already and declared everybody guilty there would be more useful discussion here.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what goes to a grand jury, and what the grand jury has to say about it. Now that the >insinuation< that Biden's kid >isn't< being investigated has been dealt with, the rest of what you're saying is speculation, conjecture, and heresay promulgated from who knows where ‽ Period.
Yep! The Q-publicans have a loyal ally in the Kremlin! I guess they consider publicly being traitors - >and they are traitors< - OK as long as they say they're going after private - alleged - corruption. I guess they'd have you believe they're just ruling! I clearly don't believe it for a cold, Minsk minute.
BTW: I heard on broadcast, mainstream network news, just last night, that Biden's kid is >already< under investigation and >has been< under investigation. So what's your point?
It just occurred to me that Garland may be holding off pending recommendations of the 1/6 committee. I just heard on ABC that Kushner was helpful with his testimony today. I understand from the commentary that they've finished with the rioters and are now focusing on employees, associates, and agents of the Executive branch, including ol' Tweety himself. Stay tuned & patient, and I'll attempt to heed my own council!
Gee! And here I thought I was developing to a point concerning ramifications of Q-publicans "puppetizing" the SCOTUS! Got'ta be more careful about introducing those side issues people can use to evade the main point! A Rhetoric prof couldn't have taught a better lesson!
You did catch my attention. An interesting take on what's really going on, and your explanation for why it's happening. But does a marginalized SCOTUS really serve the interests of conservative groups like the Federalist Society. My limited understanding of SCOTUS's history, mainly from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and HCR's "Letters from an American" is that it has been used to ensure dominion of those with property. Before the 20th century the Supreme Court did the absolute minimum to defend the rights of people versus corporations and those with property. The SCOTUS of today is dragging us backwards and forcefully. What really bothers me is all these unsigned shadow docket decisions that do not provide any consistent logical reasoning or rationale for why the conservatives on the court are doing what they are doing, particularly with the redistricting decisions. I can't make any sense of it, but actions do speak louder than words. It seems as if they are canceling (yes, I chose that word deliberately) any attempts to consider using different ethnicities or races in addressing the discriminatory redistricting processes used in our past. Basically, they like the ways things as they are! Having a marginalized or puppetized SCOTUS doesn't seem to fit those goals to me at least. Maybe someone with a better legal understanding than me could help me figure out what the hell is going on with all these seemingly endless and exasperating shadow docket rulings.
I'm nobody's SCOTUS or legal scholar, but neither am I fool enough to buy into >fundamentalist< clap-trap - like "originalist" and "textualist" and "strict constructionist." The conservatives are suggesting they intend to interpret the Constitution as the founders meant it to be interpreted. (The hustle lying in suggesting they're the only legal scholars who know how to read!) The founders were of the 18th Century, and lived in an 18th Century world. It logically follows they >say< they intend to interpret the document in an 18th Century way. As an obnoxious example, the 2nd Amendment was written at a time that muskets were common and the rifled musket was high-tech armament. The West had yet to be pioneered and a considerable portion of the population put food on the table by hunting. Further, there was no national army, per se. Each state raised its own militia, and each state contributed its militia to a combined army in national emergencies. The Civil War was fought by state regiments. Today, each state has a National Guard as throwback to that tradition, while hunting is mostly an occasional recreational activity. Taxpayer dollars now arm the national guard, and what do recreational hunters need of assault rifles, anyhow ‽ How is 21st Century reality to be interpreted as an 18th Century context ‽
Does it serve the Federalist Society? Beats the hell out of me. I >do< know the 19th Century SCOTUS returned the Dred Scott decision. OK. It's an imperfect institution. On that I'll agree. So is any other organized human endeavor. But remember the words: "in Order to form a more perfect Union" . . . I'm thinkin' >there's no way< a gaggle of clowns espousing such fundamentalist readings of the Constitution promotes that mission any more than does the kind of fundamentalist reading espoused by fanatics who interpret the words of bronze-age barbarians in their holy books as absolute, literal truth are likely to result in making us all righteous.
Tsk-tsk. I seem to recall someone else on this list taking others to task for insulting clowns. 😉
But I agree completely! When we compare costs over time we adjust for inflation. Similarly, a sensible society would compare interpretations over time -- e.g. "... a more perfect ..." by adjusting for societal, technological, etc. dynamics.
My bad with clowns. I apologize to clowns everywhere for that faux pas. Those kids' parties must be a little taste of hell! I'll try to remember I should say >court jesters< next time! (That's contextually a better term, anyway!)
Arguably the Office of Special Counsel has the capacity to sanction Justice Thomas. The 1978 Ethics in Government Act requires all federal judges to fill out annual financial-disclosure forms. The purpose is to identify potential or actual conflicts of interest. One section of the approved form: "Spouse’s Employment Assets & Income."
Thomas pleaded guilty in 2011 for failing to disclose 20 years’ worth of income his wife had earned — including more than $686,500 between 2003 and 2007 from the Heritage Foundation.
The relevant question on the disclosure form isn't complicated: Even if Justice Thomas wasn't a lawyer, he shouldn't have needed to hire one to explain to him that the box marked NONE next to the phrase "Spouse's Non-Investment Income" should only be checked if his spouse had no non-investment income.
Since then, Ginni Thomas has continued to work as a political operative. Apparently, while the January insurrection was ongoing, she sent dozens of text messages to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows promoting efforts to overturn the 2020 election. She has contributed at least $15,000 to Republican political committees, according to federal and state records. Apparently she is a member of the Council for National Policy, with Republican luminaries, Christian conservatives, Tea Party activists and MAGA operatives, with more than 400 members who include leaders of organizations like the Federalist Society, the National Rifle Association and the Family Research Council. Founded in 1981 as a counterweight to liberalism, the group was hailed by President Ronald Reagan as seeking the “return of righteousness, justice and truth” to America. She founded a group called Groundswell with the support of Stephen K. Bannon, nationalist/Fascist former Trump adviser. It holds a weekly meeting of influential conservatives, many of whom work directly on issues that have come before the court.
Apparently fundraising is performed by both Groundswell and the Council for National policy. If that is true, she needs to produce all her records and identify all concerned as part of her husband's financial disclosure.
Also, she has had the same MO for many years. Similar accusations were made during the pendency of Bush v. Gore in 1980.
IMHO OSC can bring an action before the Merit Systems Protection Board. Under 1.06 of the Ethics in Government Act: Failure to File and Falsification Penalties
Actions that the Department of Justice May Take
Civil Action
5 U.S.C. app. § 104(a)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701(b)
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. § 102.
Thanks for pointing out that the SCOTUS >indeed< must observe ethical standards. Someone elsewhere here seems to think otherwise. What the devil is SCOTUS if not a group of federal judges ‽
Thanks for the info about Thomas and his wife! I knew they were close friends of the late right wing talker Rush Limbaugh, but did not realize the depth of his wife's involvement in right wing politics.
If Thomas was convicted of a crime, but not removed by impeachment (Republicans depend too much on his consistent conservative opinions to vote to remove him from office), does he continue to serve from a jail cell? Just wondering...
Note that I said arguably. Theoretically OSC can file a removal action before the MSPB proceeding if Thomas fails to comply, However the Constitution imposes the only way he can be impeached. Please note that when allegations of false filings were made about Patricia Barry, Trump's sister, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, she resigned to preclude an investigation. Several of my colleagues have argued that Thomas also faces a tax audit.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments …
Besides the potential OSC action on Thomas' violations of his financial disclosures, recent evidence shows that his wife SPOKE to Trump while actions regarding January 6 insurrection were pending. This would, if proven, be a basis for sanction. .28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2)Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3)Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c)A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d)For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1)“proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2)the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3)“fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4)“financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i)Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii)An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii)The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv)Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e)No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f)Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908; Pub. L. 93–512, § 1, Dec. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 1609; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 214(a), (b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2661; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1007, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4667; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)
I wish we could go back in time to the Bush-Gore decision. How different would our country, or even the planet, be if Gore won out? Wasn’t the district known to be liberal?
For John Roberts, time is ticking. The longer he doesn't take action, the more sure we all can be how corrupted our SCOTUS & the filthy, sociopathic rich who bought these rightwing sellout jurists want it to stay this way.
In a more ideal world, Justices Thomas and Kavenaugh would recuse themselves from the upcoming abortion case. I don’t think they should decide the fate of womens’ bodies and lives when they’ve been credibly accused of harassment and rape!
Thankfully none that I know, imagine having to carry that burden full term, then being subject to court ordered visitation rights for the rapist! We’re denizens of a sick nation!
On Garland: his photos to me show an introverted, deep thinking, academically inclined scholar. He would have been an ideal Supreme Vourt Justice. Unfortunately his current position as AG in this current situation requires a tiger, an action oriented go get ‘‘em manager of toughness and determination, which, poor fellow, he just isn’t. Such is my impression.
One of the great ironies of history is that two sitting justices, who then young Republican operatives, participated in the Republican "Brothers Riot" that teed up Bush v Gore for the Supreme Court to direct the outcome of the election to Bush. Later research has demonstrated that Bush did not in fact win the election. They have been rewarded with a seat on the Court themselves.
Dr Reich, how can we get this article to Chief Justice Roberts? I will share on Twitter but I don’t think the Supremes tweet.
I am curious about Garland seeming to drag his feet (what don’t I know about the process?), about the new NY state attorney dropping the case against Trump, and about how you feel about Democrats —if we were to gain seats at the mid-term —adding four supremes to SCOTUS? And giving them term limits? If you have already written and spoken about these issues, I have missed it. But can research.
There are so many things to be sad about in our U.S. government, but I posit that the Supreme Court is #1. I'm 77 and I grew up believing that at least we had an institution that was moral and ethical above all else. I was young but I remember Earl Warren and knowing little, looking up to a great institution that set America truly apart in the world of nations. Pending? The Court is already dead.
I thought so too! But that hasn't been true for at least 20 years. The only time EVER that I cried due to an election outcome was when the Supreme Court OVERRODE the Florida Supreme Court to hand "W" the presidency! I knew that was WRONG, CORRUPT. I knew at that moment something was terribly wrong with our governing body that ALLOWED that. I knew, somewhere deep inside, that the US was a different country than the one I knew growing up. Yeah, I'll be 76 next month and lived in a different country than the one we're terrified of now.
Claire! Terrified is the right word as I'm about the same age as you and can easily recall when the GOP was a viable political party represented by such as Eisenhower. (In my opinion, things started going off the rails with Reagan and, by now, there aren't any rails left and the train is just teetering through drought-stricken wastelands.) I wonder whether anyone at the Supreme Court will even raise an eyebrow at the fact that a wealthy private citizen with absolutely no position in any branch of government has taken it upon himself to conduct foreign affairs with a hostile foreign leader solely for his own benefit (a clear violation of the Constitution and rule of law and a threat to us all). Is anyone at the Supreme Court disturbed by this or are some of them (and the GOPers in Congress) okay with the idea that a private individual has decided to conduct foreign relations on his lonesome?
Lanae, the GOP is okay with anyone and anything that gives them raw, unrelenting power. They have long ago sold out the American people to that aim. I was bitterly disappointed to see that Mark Kelly (Dem Arizona) voted with Sinema and Manchin against a Biden nominee for labor. He was qualified, a good guy, but he professed policies that protected gig workers and things like that. All it took was 3 conservative Dems who are protecting the employers, not employees. After all, it's the employers, companies that keep them in power. And yes, things went off the rails with Reagan for sure, but had started before that. Two watershed moments happened for me that I can see, and felt then, would change this country. 1) The minute Reagan became president he fired an entire labor segment, the air traffic controllers in one fell swoop. A moment I froze, again, deep down I knew that was really awful and would reverberate in our society. 2) When the Supreme Court overrode the Florida Supreme Court awarding "W" the presidency. Totally uncalled for and completely corrupt. Had the Florida Supreme Court made that call Gore would likely have been president, basically he won Florida, the SC knew it and the Florida SC knew it. In my mind, always, that, to me was our first stolen election. And look where we are; our airways are filled with right wing, white supremacist, Christian dogma talking points robbing our freedom, our basic rights. Christian nationalism is cruel, white Supremacy violent. The GOP (yes, GOP!) welcomes political violence to stay in power. This isn't conservatism. You and I are both old enough to know what that is. Look where the 2000 Supreme Court took us? Where are we going NOW?
The guys Reagan let out of the mental institutioins are now running the republicon Party.
You didn't think they were going off the rails with Tricky Dicky? Or maybe you just forgot about him. I do admit, he isn't worth remembering. But the train left the track when he was president. Obama righted it, I thought. He was the best president the US ever had, in this non-American's opinion. But then they lameducked him, and the train went off the other side. Following the best president ever was the worst president ever! With America divided as it is today, I see no hope. Humpty Dumty has fallen.
Actually, when I think back on my time, I think the train started going off the rails with the assassination of JFK. The reason I first thought about Reagan was that my Dad was a tax accountant for an independent cpa. ("What does that have to do with anything?" you may be asking!). Well, my Dad knew from the get-go that the trickle-down theory, that is, the idea that tax breaks and write-offs at the top would percolate down to the folks in the lower-and middle class, would NEVER work. My Dad knew that wealthy people are, by being wealthy, not inclined to part with a penny of their wealth, especially since they did nothing to earn it but cheat, lie, and swindle. He used to say, everytime he saw Reagan: "This'll never work." It's little comfort to know that he was right but, well, in my family we knew it would go this way and that it was a bad development, not just for us but for everyone of modest or little income. The reason I did not think about Nixon was that well, I guess, the slide was already going on and that, with Reagan, it really got going. I never felt anything negative about Obama as I think he did fairly well with the hand he was dealt....Joe was dealt the worst hand of all (I think), coming after the worst pres in the history of the world...if only we could have someone like Pres Zelenskyy but, well, we might already have that as I believe Biden is also doing pretty well with the terrible hand he got. I imagine that, if ever we get out of this, it will be because the govt woke up and decided to pursue a full accounting of just what Trump did and what should be the response....because of his fixation on windmills, I have concluded that he probably should be sent to an institution for the criminally insane and never let out....maybe Putin could be in an adjoining cell.
Sounds like a good place for him. But he is white and male, though not Christian. He will find a way out of it if there is one. With luck, there isn't it.
AMEN, Claire! This country is not the one I grew up in. There have been positive changes, but they did not come from government.
You are right Jan. I am so concerned for my children (one turning 50 this year and the others in their early to late 40's) and grandchildren who are just starting out. Personal important basic human rights are being taken away and trampled and economic opportunity is disappearing rapidly. More than 58 countries have some form of universal health care, many countries offer family leave, etc. Nothing good, progressive or positive is happening anymore and hasn't for about the last 40 years, the start of neoliberal economic policies. The end of the "common good>"
Yes! When you say 40 years. you're back to Reagan. With Reagan in charge, progressive ideas--the idea of using govt to help people live better and more secure lives--went out the window as Reagan sold people on the idea that the wealthy people would help the poorer classes once they were allowed to keep more of their wealth. The top tax rates dwindled and dwindled down to virtually nothing as more and more tax loopholes and benefits went to the wealthy. At the same time, nothing ever trickled down so the lower and middle classes ended up footing more and more of the bill until they had nothing left. I don't know if we'll ever see a progressive take on revenues and taxes as every time Biden tries, he meets stiff opposition from the wealthies (of course). I think Bernie Sanders has tried his level-best but, at this point, he's as stymied as he ever was. I would ask any GOPer what he or she thinks the GOP has done for them or what legislation they've offered. They seem fairly good at batting down what the Dems come up with but they have no agenda of their own beyond defending someone who never should have been elected and now appears to have been directly involved in a coup. I had hoped we would have gotten to the public hearings by now but apparently this is more involved than I thought...hope it will be worth the wait and spell the end of a presidential career that never should have been.
Sorry I disagree.
Claire: I agree. When the Republican Court ruled giving the White House to the Bushman, he was elected by one vote of the Court. While I have perspectives and principles, I have tried to follow the Florida case closely, with some scientific scrutiny and objectivity. My only decision is unless or until the uncounted ballots are counted we will not know who won. The Bushman might have won, Gore might have won but until the votes are counted we will never know for sure.
I think it's important to remember that Al Gore conceded to Bush in the end. That is, he put the concern for national unity and the good of the nation ahead of his own victory/defeat in that specific election. That speaks volumes about Gore as a candidate for the highest public office in the country. Lamentably, the GOP persisted in its win-at-all-costs approach to elections, with the result of disunity and strife and continual conflict and an even more unfortunate (treasonous?) leader than Bush ever was. (I previously thought that there could be no worse public servant than George W Bush. Alas, I was wrong.) Perhaps Al Gore was the president who might have been; perhaps he was never the duly-elected president. However it turned out, we got the worst of all possible worlds and things went downhill, rapidly after Obama tried to put us back on track. We are now faced with the spectre of an ex-president who is more than willing to commit treason (by conspiring with an adversary in the height of conflict) to secure his own ends. That is what the GOP has set us on path to receive.
I am so glad you brought this up, Professor Reich. Chief Justice Roberts’ legacy has a lot riding on how he addresses the issues at hand - indeed, the reputation of the Supreme Court has faltered so much in the last 17 years.
The video of you testifying against Robert’s for the SCOTUS Chief Justice is timeless. Your message is as much (if not more) relevant today as it was in 2005.
Looking forward to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation soon… 🌻
Roberts terminally and positively turned me off and lost any respect I might have had for him when in Citizens United he enshrined the ridiculous notion that corporations are people and have the same rights as people. Then he supported dark, unlimited political donations, and it got worse from there. The man is either dumb as a rock or has a mean, evil streak that's reflected in the GQP members of the court.
He is not "dumb as a rock" he does have a mean, evil streak. He knows EXACTLY what he's doing.
What I find remarkable about this guy, among other things, is that he apparently doesn't think through what the effects of his actions might be. For example, what might happen to American politics if people and corporations (using their human voice, of course) could make unlimited financial donations to candidates and parties? He and his minions have been perhaps even worse for American democracy than the former guy, and that's reprehensible in my view.
Porter, I believe totally that he has thought this through. Go find some background on Roberts and look at where he came from. He is doing EXACTLY what he intended when he came on the court. AND, that's WHY he was nominated by conservatives in the Federalist Society. All these right wing conservatives came from there. Robert Reich's testimony underscores what Roberts believed, and his supporters WANTED the SC we are being screwed by today.
Bingo!
I have a dream that Thomas and Alito will be gone and Biden appoints two new!!! That will be nice!
If your dream came true (which I would love to see happen), it would put a lot of pressure on Mitch to figure out how to delay consideration of replacements for two, six, maybe even ten years, if he can keep control of the senate that long.
Maybe he’ll be gone too.
From your lips to God's ears.
The court has made some fairly terrible decisions as well. Extending persobhood to corporations - ensuring their "speech". Rolling back new deal policies until FDR had to threaten to pack the court.
The judical branch has always been political - fortunately for the country many times in the past justices were able to put their own partisan lense aside and do what was just. However today we have a clown court. Republican nominees have been hyper-partisan since the 90s. Ideology is the primary selector for a party that seeks to disrupt and dismantle central government authority to do anything substanstive for the people in this country and wage political battles over cultural issues to feed a base that cares more about individuals pregancy status than whether children in this country are licing in poverty.
I am not trying to be ageist - but it seems to me that people who lived under the a US government which held the trust of its people believe we can go back to a better time. My entire adult life the president has lied to me, the courts have sided with corporate elite at expense of the people, congress has passed laws for theie real constituents - the moneyed interests in america. And no one st the top is held to account. We ignore the crimes, grift, fraud of the powerful. We ignore the deaths of Yemeni children, Palestinian children.
How can I believe in these institutiond when they have been the driving force of so much suffering, have failed to deliver the goods, have done all they csn to protect themselves and their corporate masters at our expense?
I think the situation is much more dire than these sentiments express. It seems to me that going forward we will need to cut away the rot. Someone will need to sieze the levers of the state, hold our politicans and corporate masters to account.
I was going to write something similar, but your submission hits all points I was going to make. The “rule of law” has become a joke, serving the wealthy, mostly white (I’m mostly white) elite. The sad display of US Senators denigrating Judge Brown-Jackson and railing against the “elite,” a group they all belong to, was embarrassing and despicable. I do think your comment about “seizing the levers of the state” is somewhat troublesome and deserves more discussion or explanation. A leveling of the electorate with certain reforms that enable all of us to vote easily, as most wealthy citizens are able to do, would result, I believe, in the “seizing” of power by the majority of reasonable people. There’s an article in “The Atlantic” about Will Hurd and his dream of a reasonable electorate, well worth reading. He outlines how we could seize the levers!
Thank you Michael Pullen. Especially rending is your statement concerning Yemeni and Palestine. I agree the situation is more dire than any of us realize.
Well said. The rot has just gotten bigger and louder and needs to be cut away!
Thank you for the power and clarity of your reasoning and suggested steps for a reformation.
Why hasn't Clarence Thomas been arrested for his actions, which are clearly illegal under federal law??? Recuse himself ???- how about insist on his immediate resignation. He doesn't have one shred of integrity and is a Trump puppet!
My answer to all of your questions here is the Democratic party leadership is afraid to take a stand on anything that may cause them to lose a single voter. I'm talking about President Biden and so called leaders Schumer and Polosi, if tough talk got the job done the r's wouldn't be kicking their teeth in at every turn. IMO the republican party has evolved into a perversion of the functional, capable party it was before Pres. Reagan thru to the 'orange man crazy' it is today and it seems the Democratic party is incapable of exposing that for what it is.
I can offer no solutions, but can wonder, should these leaders have to face a primary challenger to move them out?
Said all that to say, nothing will change with Clarence Thomas and not much backlash for Ginni, I suspect it will fade away like other trumplicon corruption.
I agree about the R's. Unfortunately, the last R "good guy" was Ike. I still like Ike!
We do have 2 republicans on the Jan 6 committee who are still ethical enough to be on that committee. I like to include all the Rs in one basket myself since, well, they are in one basket. But, let's congratulate Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger as true American. I may not like their politics but they are at least ethical human beings. Come on hug a real republican today.
"Can't we all get along?" Rodney King
I can't disagree with you about Cheney & Kitzinger. I, too, admire them. The Q-publicans are trying to run them out of the party, too. So, consider my remark modified to include them, as well. I know there are a few more who are taking heat, as well - the ones who haven't announced they're retiring rather than actually taking a stand.
Absolutely, the R's today would drum him out of the party, the trumplicons gotta have the 'mean and nasty'.
Yes, I'm afraid it seems that the Rs play dirty and the Ds are afraid to strongly counter, even when the Rs are clearly in the wrong. And they don't stick together like the Rs either so they seem inconsistent. They need to unite and speak up. Loudly.
From your lips to the Goddesses ears.
YES! If he doesn't resign Thomas should be removed from the Court.
I agree with you. Unfortunatley there is nothing like this that can be done. That is why they are called the supreme court. Congress has to pass legislation and they can't even do that. They can only suggest the supreme court does so. To put it mildly we are in deep dodo unless something vary serios=us can be done to "stop all the steal" in the supreme court system. Maybe we can get drumph to lock them up. Ha, Ha, ha, or in other words LOL.
Dr Reich's morning message provides a little more insight - for me, anyway - as to >why< Jackson is ol' Tweety's favorite president. I had always suspected it was because Pres. Jackass' picture is on the 20! Maybe that was just another reason. (I'd've still preferred the picture be changed to Sacajawea.) Just sayin'. Otherwise, Dr Reich makes it clear that the SCOTUS is embracing its own marginalization. Makes me sort of wonder when all the Q-publicans will need to do is include the language "This law supersedes Constitutional restraint," knowing that the SCOTUS ruling will always be: "Yep! That's what the law says!"
I'm still wonderin' why it's taking Garland so long to move. Time is likely running out.
(Well spoken statement in the video clip. I probably heard it on the news when it was first delivered.)
It'll be interesting to see what the conservative OH SC does with the Republican drafted voter redistricting maps, that they've already ruled as unconstitutional - 3 times! - being resubmitted with a few alleged "tweaks." The Republicans voted down maps drawn by the non-partisan team that the voters voted for in the first place - and the OH SC directed them to use. The OH AG justification is that the Republicans are the ruling party, so they're ruling! I recommend keeping an eye on that fiasco, too.
I think there's far more at stake in marginalizing the SCOTUS than is - at first blush - obvious.
What is garland going to do exactly?
Lets pretend Garland charges Trump. When republicans tske the house and senate in 2022 - they will open investigstions into Hunter Biden. They will ask whynthe justicr deosrtment hasnt chsrgef him for his crimes - and point out hoe corruot the democrsts are.
We as a society are incapable of holding powerful people - the american nobility - to account. Wall street bankers, politicans, hell even soldiers who committed war crimes - none of them held to account.
And this didnt start with Trump. Its always been a problem - but since Clinton turned the Democratic party into a corporate party the problem has expanded.
It has been over 20 years since the 9/11 attack, yet the mastermind of the attack and his 4 co-conspirators have yet to be tried for their crime! During World War II the government tried and executed Nazi saboteurs in only a couple of months. It's not just Garland; our justice system has broken down!
Tune into ABC news (GMA) right now. (7:00 AM, EDT) Their lead announced they'll be talking about Biden's kid's investigation. (Easily verifiable.)
Cool. His laptop has been in federal custody since Trump was in office. Why no charges? His business partner coming out and telling the world thst Biden met with him and Hunter and was knowledgeable of their dealings in china - thst he was "the big guy" and that he was being cut in on these deals - 10% for the big guy.. these deals being msde while biden was vice president.
You think any of that is going to trial? You think Biden is going to sit quietnin the white house while his kid gets prosecuted?
So my point is thst both sides are corrupt - neither wants to tip scales of accountability that in the long term would see themselves held to account. Which means essentially both sides have to hold off on accountability - or you ruin the whole game.
This is why we never get justice - not for war crimes, financial crimes or high crimes. The q-anon shaman can go and sit in jail - but never the financial institutions behind the flint water crisis, never soldiers laughing as they extinguish human life or the commanders who shelter them from prosecution. Never fail sons like Hunter Biden.
@Michael. Innocent until proven guilty. Doing business, even with powerful recommenders, is not necessarily corrupt. Depends on what they were doing. And when you look at the actual crimes by Trump and his ilk that are already proven, well, this chasing of the Bidens really smells funny...
Exactly!
I mean if 50k in a monthly salary to a drug addict to sit on the board of a foreign energy company, and a deals are made cutting in 'the big guy' doesnt perk up your ears i guess we live in different universes.
I think we can agree that both Biden and Trump are corrupt. Our ruling class is corrupt. And our institutions fail to apply the rules to them.
I would love to see either side held to account - but i don't think the system is capable of providing accountability for the ruling class.
The faith and trust in the supreme court is a historical artifact - in reality the court will continue to become more and more partisan - that is part of the plan - capture the courts, make everything a culture war partisan issue.
@Michael. Cynicism is the beginning of the end of discourse. When you say "both sides are corrupt" you are playing into a script written by the corrupt class. They want us to think there is no difference between the parties, no difference between the candidates. Even if you really believed that (maybe you do?!?) I don't believe that any of us should trot out the position papers of one side against the other, particularly when that angle, that perspective, that cynicism tends to demoralize otherwise well-meaning people who will try to make a difference. If you hadn't run the trial in your own mind already and declared everybody guilty there would be more useful discussion here.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what goes to a grand jury, and what the grand jury has to say about it. Now that the >insinuation< that Biden's kid >isn't< being investigated has been dealt with, the rest of what you're saying is speculation, conjecture, and heresay promulgated from who knows where ‽ Period.
Yep! The Q-publicans have a loyal ally in the Kremlin! I guess they consider publicly being traitors - >and they are traitors< - OK as long as they say they're going after private - alleged - corruption. I guess they'd have you believe they're just ruling! I clearly don't believe it for a cold, Minsk minute.
BTW: I heard on broadcast, mainstream network news, just last night, that Biden's kid is >already< under investigation and >has been< under investigation. So what's your point?
I too am concerned that Garland is either too slow or doing nothing to prosecute trump and his staff.
It just occurred to me that Garland may be holding off pending recommendations of the 1/6 committee. I just heard on ABC that Kushner was helpful with his testimony today. I understand from the commentary that they've finished with the rioters and are now focusing on employees, associates, and agents of the Executive branch, including ol' Tweety himself. Stay tuned & patient, and I'll attempt to heed my own council!
I’m surprised ol’Tweety’s favorite president isn’t himself.
That just wouldn't look "patriotic" while he tries to hump a US flag on stage! LOL! ];-)>
Will Rogers once said:
There are three kinds of men:
The ones that learn by reading.
The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them have to touch the electric fence and find out for themselves.
I still recall when I was a kid growing up in farm country the story of another kid who once urinated on an electric fence.
And we wonder why Trump's hair is still orange...
Gee! And here I thought I was developing to a point concerning ramifications of Q-publicans "puppetizing" the SCOTUS! Got'ta be more careful about introducing those side issues people can use to evade the main point! A Rhetoric prof couldn't have taught a better lesson!
You did catch my attention. An interesting take on what's really going on, and your explanation for why it's happening. But does a marginalized SCOTUS really serve the interests of conservative groups like the Federalist Society. My limited understanding of SCOTUS's history, mainly from Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and HCR's "Letters from an American" is that it has been used to ensure dominion of those with property. Before the 20th century the Supreme Court did the absolute minimum to defend the rights of people versus corporations and those with property. The SCOTUS of today is dragging us backwards and forcefully. What really bothers me is all these unsigned shadow docket decisions that do not provide any consistent logical reasoning or rationale for why the conservatives on the court are doing what they are doing, particularly with the redistricting decisions. I can't make any sense of it, but actions do speak louder than words. It seems as if they are canceling (yes, I chose that word deliberately) any attempts to consider using different ethnicities or races in addressing the discriminatory redistricting processes used in our past. Basically, they like the ways things as they are! Having a marginalized or puppetized SCOTUS doesn't seem to fit those goals to me at least. Maybe someone with a better legal understanding than me could help me figure out what the hell is going on with all these seemingly endless and exasperating shadow docket rulings.
I'm nobody's SCOTUS or legal scholar, but neither am I fool enough to buy into >fundamentalist< clap-trap - like "originalist" and "textualist" and "strict constructionist." The conservatives are suggesting they intend to interpret the Constitution as the founders meant it to be interpreted. (The hustle lying in suggesting they're the only legal scholars who know how to read!) The founders were of the 18th Century, and lived in an 18th Century world. It logically follows they >say< they intend to interpret the document in an 18th Century way. As an obnoxious example, the 2nd Amendment was written at a time that muskets were common and the rifled musket was high-tech armament. The West had yet to be pioneered and a considerable portion of the population put food on the table by hunting. Further, there was no national army, per se. Each state raised its own militia, and each state contributed its militia to a combined army in national emergencies. The Civil War was fought by state regiments. Today, each state has a National Guard as throwback to that tradition, while hunting is mostly an occasional recreational activity. Taxpayer dollars now arm the national guard, and what do recreational hunters need of assault rifles, anyhow ‽ How is 21st Century reality to be interpreted as an 18th Century context ‽
Does it serve the Federalist Society? Beats the hell out of me. I >do< know the 19th Century SCOTUS returned the Dred Scott decision. OK. It's an imperfect institution. On that I'll agree. So is any other organized human endeavor. But remember the words: "in Order to form a more perfect Union" . . . I'm thinkin' >there's no way< a gaggle of clowns espousing such fundamentalist readings of the Constitution promotes that mission any more than does the kind of fundamentalist reading espoused by fanatics who interpret the words of bronze-age barbarians in their holy books as absolute, literal truth are likely to result in making us all righteous.
Tsk-tsk. I seem to recall someone else on this list taking others to task for insulting clowns. 😉
But I agree completely! When we compare costs over time we adjust for inflation. Similarly, a sensible society would compare interpretations over time -- e.g. "... a more perfect ..." by adjusting for societal, technological, etc. dynamics.
My bad with clowns. I apologize to clowns everywhere for that faux pas. Those kids' parties must be a little taste of hell! I'll try to remember I should say >court jesters< next time! (That's contextually a better term, anyway!)
Well said DZK!!
DZK this!!
Right on, brother! Couldn't agree more!
I agree wholeheartedly.
Arguably the Office of Special Counsel has the capacity to sanction Justice Thomas. The 1978 Ethics in Government Act requires all federal judges to fill out annual financial-disclosure forms. The purpose is to identify potential or actual conflicts of interest. One section of the approved form: "Spouse’s Employment Assets & Income."
Thomas pleaded guilty in 2011 for failing to disclose 20 years’ worth of income his wife had earned — including more than $686,500 between 2003 and 2007 from the Heritage Foundation.
The relevant question on the disclosure form isn't complicated: Even if Justice Thomas wasn't a lawyer, he shouldn't have needed to hire one to explain to him that the box marked NONE next to the phrase "Spouse's Non-Investment Income" should only be checked if his spouse had no non-investment income.
Since then, Ginni Thomas has continued to work as a political operative. Apparently, while the January insurrection was ongoing, she sent dozens of text messages to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows promoting efforts to overturn the 2020 election. She has contributed at least $15,000 to Republican political committees, according to federal and state records. Apparently she is a member of the Council for National Policy, with Republican luminaries, Christian conservatives, Tea Party activists and MAGA operatives, with more than 400 members who include leaders of organizations like the Federalist Society, the National Rifle Association and the Family Research Council. Founded in 1981 as a counterweight to liberalism, the group was hailed by President Ronald Reagan as seeking the “return of righteousness, justice and truth” to America. She founded a group called Groundswell with the support of Stephen K. Bannon, nationalist/Fascist former Trump adviser. It holds a weekly meeting of influential conservatives, many of whom work directly on issues that have come before the court.
Apparently fundraising is performed by both Groundswell and the Council for National policy. If that is true, she needs to produce all her records and identify all concerned as part of her husband's financial disclosure.
Also, she has had the same MO for many years. Similar accusations were made during the pendency of Bush v. Gore in 1980.
IMHO OSC can bring an action before the Merit Systems Protection Board. Under 1.06 of the Ethics in Government Act: Failure to File and Falsification Penalties
Actions that the Department of Justice May Take
Civil Action
5 U.S.C. app. § 104(a)(1); 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701(b)
The Attorney General may bring a civil action in any appropriate United States district court against any individual who knowingly and willfully falsifies or who knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. § 102.
Criminal Action
5 U.S.C. app. § 104(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 5 C.F.R. § 2634.701(c)
The Attorney General may bring a criminal action against any individual who:
knowingly and willfully falsifies information required to be reported or
knowingly and willfully fails to file or report any information that such individual is required to report.
Thanks for pointing out that the SCOTUS >indeed< must observe ethical standards. Someone elsewhere here seems to think otherwise. What the devil is SCOTUS if not a group of federal judges ‽
Thanks for the info about Thomas and his wife! I knew they were close friends of the late right wing talker Rush Limbaugh, but did not realize the depth of his wife's involvement in right wing politics.
If Thomas was convicted of a crime, but not removed by impeachment (Republicans depend too much on his consistent conservative opinions to vote to remove him from office), does he continue to serve from a jail cell? Just wondering...
Note that I said arguably. Theoretically OSC can file a removal action before the MSPB proceeding if Thomas fails to comply, However the Constitution imposes the only way he can be impeached. Please note that when allegations of false filings were made about Patricia Barry, Trump's sister, 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, she resigned to preclude an investigation. Several of my colleagues have argued that Thomas also faces a tax audit.
How does impeachment occur under the Constitution?
Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
The House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" (Article I, section 2) and "the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments …
Thank you, I wasn't aware that this would also to members of the Supreme Court!
Besides the potential OSC action on Thomas' violations of his financial disclosures, recent evidence shows that his wife SPOKE to Trump while actions regarding January 6 insurrection were pending. This would, if proven, be a basis for sanction. .28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2)Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3)Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4)He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c)A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d)For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1)“proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2)the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3)“fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4)“financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i)Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii)An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii)The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv)Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e)No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f)Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908; Pub. L. 93–512, § 1, Dec. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 1609; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 214(a), (b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2661; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1007, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4667; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)
I wish we could go back in time to the Bush-Gore decision. How different would our country, or even the planet, be if Gore won out? Wasn’t the district known to be liberal?
I wish dirt was gold too.
Sometimes you feel so powerless you retreat into imaginary what-ifs for no good reason.
For John Roberts, time is ticking. The longer he doesn't take action, the more sure we all can be how corrupted our SCOTUS & the filthy, sociopathic rich who bought these rightwing sellout jurists want it to stay this way.
In a more ideal world, Justices Thomas and Kavenaugh would recuse themselves from the upcoming abortion case. I don’t think they should decide the fate of womens’ bodies and lives when they’ve been credibly accused of harassment and rape!
No man should get to decide that, period.
@Paula. And no woman should get to decide that for another woman!
👍👍
Yes, it's interesting that so many men are willing to go along with the notion that rape is no justification for abortion.
Thankfully none that I know, imagine having to carry that burden full term, then being subject to court ordered visitation rights for the rapist! We’re denizens of a sick nation!
On Garland: his photos to me show an introverted, deep thinking, academically inclined scholar. He would have been an ideal Supreme Vourt Justice. Unfortunately his current position as AG in this current situation requires a tiger, an action oriented go get ‘‘em manager of toughness and determination, which, poor fellow, he just isn’t. Such is my impression.
Only two things can save the Supreme Court (and perhaps us): A strong code of ethics with enforcement clauses, and term limits.
Also, justices who issue rulings based on the facts and the law without partisan considerations.
Roberts will do nothing.
One of the great ironies of history is that two sitting justices, who then young Republican operatives, participated in the Republican "Brothers Riot" that teed up Bush v Gore for the Supreme Court to direct the outcome of the election to Bush. Later research has demonstrated that Bush did not in fact win the election. They have been rewarded with a seat on the Court themselves.
Dr Reich, how can we get this article to Chief Justice Roberts? I will share on Twitter but I don’t think the Supremes tweet.
I am curious about Garland seeming to drag his feet (what don’t I know about the process?), about the new NY state attorney dropping the case against Trump, and about how you feel about Democrats —if we were to gain seats at the mid-term —adding four supremes to SCOTUS? And giving them term limits? If you have already written and spoken about these issues, I have missed it. But can research.
Thank you for your enlightening work!