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 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… 🌻
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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 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… 🌻
I have a dream that Thomas and Alito will be gone and Biden appoints two new!!! That will be nice!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!