Clarence Thomas

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Justice department won’t pursue criminal contempt charge against Merrick Garland – as it happened

      by

      The justice department on Friday told House speaker Mike Johnson that it will not pursue criminal contempt of Congress charges against attorney general Merrick Garland.This is according to a letter reviewed by Reuters.On Wednesday, the House voted on Wednesday to hold Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio recordings of Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.Garland has defended the justice department, saying that officials have done everything they could to provide information to the investigative committees about Hur’s classified documents investigation into Biden.Here’s a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
      The justice department on Friday told House speaker Mike Johnson that it will not pursue criminal contempt of Congress charges against attorney general Merrick Garland. This is according to a letter reviewed by Reuters. On Wednesday, the House voted on Wednesday to hold Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio recordings of Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.
      The supreme court has ruled 6-3 in favor of a challenge to a federal ban on gun ‘bump stock’ devices. The vote was 6-3, with liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
      In her dissent against the supreme court’s ruling on bump stocks, liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor said: “When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck.” She adds that the “majority’s artificially narrow definition hamstrings the government’s efforts to keep machine guns from gunmen like the Las Vegas shooter.”
      Joe Biden released a statement in light of the supreme court’s latest decision on bump stocks, saying: “Today’s decision strikes down an important gun safety regulation. Americans should not have to live in fear of this mass devastation.”
      Vice president Kamala Harris has released the following statement in response to the supreme court’s ruling on bump stocks: “Weapons of war have no place on the streets of a civil society… Unfortunately, today’s supreme court ruling strikes down this important, commonsense regulation on devices that convert semiautomatic rifles into weapons that can fire hundreds of bullets per minute.”
      Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader, has criticized the ruling on bump stocks and called the supreme court “even further to the right of Donald Trump.” Bump stocks have played “a devastating role in many of the horrific mass shootings in our country,” Schumer said in a statement responding to the ruling.
      The National Association for Gun Rights celebrated the decision on bump stocks and called on the supreme court to issue similar rulings in cases involving “ghost guns” and pistol braces. “The ATF has wandered so far out of its lane for so long, it can’t even find the road any more,” said Dudley Brown, the association’s president.
      March for Our Lives has issued a statement in response to the supreme court’s decision, calling it a “misguided and deadly decision.” It went on to add: “While this ruling rests fundamentally on an interpretation of statutes, not the second amendment, its consequences will be deadly. The supreme court has effectively given mass shooters the easy ability to turn any event or public space into a war zone and mass grave.”
      That’s it as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.Louisiana’s Republican representative Garret Graves will not be running for re-election, he announced on Friday.In a statement, Graves, who has represented the state’s 6th district since 2015, said:
      “After much input from constituents, consultation with supporters, consensus from family, and guidance from the Almighty, it is clear that running for Congress this year does not make sense. It is evident that a run in any temporary district will cause actual permanent damage to Louisiana’s great representation in Congress.”
      Democrats are seizing on Donald Trump’s ‘horrible city’ remark about Milwaukee for ads. Robert Tait reports for the Guardian:US Democrats have seized on Donald Trump’s dismissal of Milwaukee as “a horrible city” by trumpeting the unflattering description on advertising hoardings – a month before the city in the swing state of Wisconsin hosts the Republican national convention, where the former president is set to be the party’s presidential nominee this November.Trump reportedly made the comment in a meeting with congressional Republicans in Washington on Thursday, his first return to Capitol Hill since extremist supporters broke into Congress on 6 January 2021, to try to stop Joe Biden’s victory over him.Republican party figures found themselves scrambling to contain the fallout from a political own goal over a city purposely chosen to host the convention on 15-18 July, because Wisconsin is expected to be key to the outcome of the 2024 election.For the full story, click here:The justice department on Friday told House speaker Mike Johnson that it will not pursue criminal contempt of Congress charges against attorney general Merrick Garland.This is according to a letter reviewed by Reuters.On Wednesday, the House voted on Wednesday to hold Garland in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over audio recordings of Joe Biden’s interview with special counsel Robert Hur.Garland has defended the justice department, saying that officials have done everything they could to provide information to the investigative committees about Hur’s classified documents investigation into Biden.March for Our Lives has issued a statement in response to the supreme court’s decision on bump stocks, calling it a “misguided and deadly decision.”It went on to add:
      “While this ruling rests fundamentally on an interpretation of statutes, not the second amendment, its consequences will be deadly. The supreme court has effectively given mass shooters the easy ability to turn any event or public space into a war zone and mass grave…
      While this decision is egregious, dangerous, and out of touch, we can’t say we’re surprised. The NRA spent $2 million to help place ideological extremists on the bench that have done nothing but bend over backward to serve the gun lobby. The recent audio recordings of the Justices depict exactly what we already knew – that they are extreme, ultra-conservative, partisan, and rely on their own personal beliefs to make decisions rather than settled constitutional jurisprudence.”
      Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator of Massachusetts, has called on Congress to ban bump stocks following the supreme court decision, which she said “enables mass shooters to inflict carnage”.Kamala Harris, who earlier released a statement criticizing the ruling on bump stocks, said the court was “rolling back” on “important progress” to prevent gun violence in America.Republicans and Democrats alike have targeted Wisconsin as a must-win state in November’s poll.Joe Biden won it by a margin of about 21,000 votes in the 2020 election, although Donald Trump challenged some vote tallies in his drive to prove that the election had been “stolen”.Trump scored a narrow win in the state in the 2016 election, a result that played a crucial role in his victory over Hillary Clinton.Milwaukee is on the western shore of Lake Michigan, north of Chicago and east of the state capital of Madison, and is a minority white, largely industrial city that votes Democratic, with a long history of racial segregation laws against Black residents. African Americans make up almost 39% of the population, with about 20% Hispanic or Latino.In a tacit admission of the potential self-harm inflicted, Steven Cheung, a Trump campaign spokesman, described the reporting of the comment as “total bullshit”.“He never said it like how it’s been falsely characterized as,” Cheung posted on X, insisting that Trump had been referring to crime and election issues.Democrats have seized on Donald Trump’s dismissal of Milwaukee as “a horrible city” by trumpeting the unflattering description on advertising hoardings, a month before the city in the swing state of Wisconsin hosts the Republican National Convention.Trump reportedly made the comment in a meeting with congressional Republicans in Washington on Thursday, his first return to Capitol Hill since extremist supporters broke into Congress on 6 January 2021.Republican party figures found themselves scrambling to contain the fallout from a political own goal over a city purposely chosen to host the convention on 15-18 July, because Wisconsin is expected to be key to the outcome of the 2024 election.Trump and Biden are running neck and neck in the state, according to numerous polls.The remark calling Milwaukee horrible drew immediate condemnation from Democrats. Republicans – recognising the extent of the possible damage – initially denied the comment had been made, before trying to soften the blow by putting it in various contexts.In a graphic sign of the high stakes, the Democratic election machine swiftly commissioned several billboards to be erected in Milwaukee, the local newspaper the Journal Sentinel reported.One featured picture of Trump next to an image of the X post that broke the story. “TRUMP TO HOUSE REPUBLICANS: ‘Milwaukee, where we are having our convention, is a horrible city’.” it read.The other had the incriminating quote next to a picture of the former president against a red background.Ten billboards are planned to be placed throughout the city in the run-up to the convention to maximise the words’ effect.Here’s how the justices voted in the supreme court’s decision to strike down a federal ban on bump stocks:The ruling was 6-3, with the court’s liberal justices dissenting from the conservative majority’s decision.Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate majority leader, has criticized the ruling on bump stocks and called the supreme court “even further to the right of Donald Trump”.Bump stocks have played “a devastating role in many of the horrific mass shootings in our country,” Schumer said in a statement responding to the ruling.
      The far-right Supreme Court continues their unprecedented assault on public safety by reversing the commonsense guidance issued in 2018 by the ATF … Sadly it’s no surprise to see the Supreme Court roll back this necessary public safety rule as they push their out of touch extreme agenda.
      He added that he warned the Trump administration at the time that “the only way to permanently close this loophole is through legislation.” Schumer added:
      Senate Democrats are ready to pass legislation to ban bump stocks but we will need votes from Senate Republicans.
      The National Association for Gun Rights celebrated the decision on bump stocks and called on the supreme court to issue similar rulings in cases involving “ghost guns” and pistol braces.“The ATF has wandered so far out of its lane for so long, it can’t even find the road any more, ” said Dudley Brown, the association’s president.
      The ATF has gone rogue in assuming lawmaking authority that it does not have with pistol brace rules, homemade firearms, who a gun dealer is, etc, and they must be reined in. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Clarence Thomas took additional trips funded by Harlan Crow, senator reveals

      by

      The US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas took at least three additional trips funded by the billionaire benefactor Harlan Crow that the conservative justice failed to disclose, the chair of the Senate judiciary committee said on Thursday.Crow, a Texas businessman and Republican donor, disclosed details about the justice’s travel between 2017 and 2021 in response to a judiciary committee vote last November to authorize subpoenas to Crow and another influential conservative, according to the committee chair, Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat representing Illinois.“The Senate judiciary committee’s investigation into the supreme court’s ethical crisis is producing new information – like what we’ve revealed [on Thursday] – and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment,” Durbin said.A supreme court spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did a lawyer for Crow.Thomas has previously come under criticism for failing to disclose gifts from Crow. Most recently, Thomas last week belatedly revised his 2019 financial disclosure form to acknowledge that Crow had paid for his “food and lodging” at a hotel in Bali, Indonesia, and at a California club.But the recent filing by Thomas failed to disclose that Crow had paid for his travel by private jet related to the Bali and California trips, and an eight-day excursion on a yacht in Indonesia, omissions that were revealed on Thursday in a redacted document that Durbin’s office said contained travel itineraries where Crow had provided the justice with transportation.The document shows private jet travel in May 2017 between St Louis in Missouri, the state of Montana, and Dallas. It also shows private jet travel in March 2019 between Washington DC and Savannah, Georgia, and private jet travel in June 2021 between Washington DC and San Jose, California.Under pressure from criticism over ethics, following a series of rows focusing mainly on Thomas and Samuel Alito, the most conservative justices, the nine justices of the supreme court last November adopted their first code of conduct.However, critics and some congressional Democrats have said the code does not go far enough to promote transparency, continuing to leave decisions to recuse from cases to the justices themselves and providing no mechanism of enforcement.Earlier this week, the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate judiciary committee, said he would block Democrats’ attempts to pass an ethics bill to rein in the US supreme court.And the Democratic congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the court had been “captured and corrupted by money and extremism”, provoking a “crisis of legitimacy” that threatens the stability of US democracy.Reuters contributed reporting More

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      White House won’t rule out commuting Hunter Biden sentence – as it happened

      by

      The White House has not ruled out a possible commutation for Hunter Biden after a jury found him guilty on three federal gun crimes.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, speaking to reporters on Wednesday on Air Force One, said:
      As we all know, the sentencing hasn’t even been scheduled yet.
      She said she had not spoken to Joe Biden about the issue since the verdict was delivered on Tuesday. The president has previously ruled out pardoning his son.“He was very clear, very upfront, obviously very definitive,” Jean-Pierre said of Biden’s remarks about a potential pardon.But on a commutation, “I just don’t have anything beyond that,” she added.Here’s a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
      The US has announced a new slew of sanctions on Russia over its military invasion of Ukraine. On Wednesday, the treasury and state departments announced sanctions targeting more than 300 targets including entities in Russia as well as in China, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.
      Joe Biden has announced the reopening of the port of Baltimore after the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed in March, killing six construction workers. In a statement released via the White House, Biden said: “I made clear that my administration would move heaven and earth to reopen the port of Baltimore – one of our nation’s largest shipping hubs. Today, thanks to the tireless work by the men and women in the Unified Command, the full navigation channel is now open to all vessel traffic, allowing a full return of commerce to the port of Baltimore.”
      Republicans in Congress are vowing to block Democrats’ push to enforce a code of ethics in the supreme court after reports of justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, accepting lavish gifts and travel opportunities. Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator and top Republican on the Senate judiciary committee, told NBC News that he will object to Democrats’ efforts to unanimously pass the bill.
      Rapper and singer Usher visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday and met with congressional leaders to focus on screening for type 1 diabetes. Speaking about his visit to reporters, Usher said: “It’s not my first time, won’t be my last time coming. Today I’m just talking about type 1 diabetes and early screening for type 1 diabetes.”
      Donald Trump is expected to meet with congressional Republicans in Washington DC this Thursday, as the GOP tries to present a united front ahead of the November elections. Trump is scheduled on Thursday to meet with House Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club, and then with Republican senators in the afternoon at the National Republican Senatorial Committee headquarters, according to reports.
      The White House has not ruled out a possible commutation for Hunter Biden after a jury found him guilty on three federal gun crimes. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, speaking to reporters on Wednesday on Air Force One, said: “As we all know, the sentencing hasn’t even been scheduled yet.”
      That’s it as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.Hillary Clinton has publicly endorsed George Latimer, a moderate Democrat from Westchester ahead of a New York congressional primary.In a post on Twitter/X, Clinton wrote:
      With Trump on the ballot, we need strong, principled Democrats in Congress more than ever. In Congress, @LatimerforNY will protect abortion rights, stand up to the NRA, and fight for President Biden’s agenda-just like he’s always done. Make a plan to vote by June 25th!
      Multiple pro-Israel groups have also thrown their efforts into endorsing Latimer – who is running against New York congressman Jamaal Bowman – in attempts to unseat the progressive “squad” in Congress over their criticisms of Israel’s deadly war on Gaza.Rapper and singer Usher visited Capitol Hill on Wednesday and met with congressional leaders to focus on screening for type 1 diabetes.Speaking about his visit to reporters, Usher said:
      It’s not my first time, won’t be my last time coming. Today I’m just talking about type 1 diabetes and early screening for type 1 diabetes.
      Georgia’s Democratic senator Raphael Warnock was among the congressional members who met with Usher.In a post on Twitter/X, Warnock wrote:
      I’m so glad Usher could stop by my office to talk about the importance of screening for type 1 diabetes. Whether pushing to strengthen access to screening or to lower the exorbitant costs of insulin, I won’t stop fighting for people with diabetes in Georgia & across the nation.
      Hunter Biden’s latest federal conviction could boost his father against Donald Trump amid Trump’s claims that the justice department is unfairly rigged against him.Robert Tait reports for the Guardian:Trump, the former president and presumptive GOP presidential nominee, has pushed that line relentlessly to explain his conviction last month on charges related to the concealment of hush-money payments to a porn star to help him win the 2016 election.He has made the claim even though his prosecution was brought in a New York state court that is independent of the Department of Justice, which is overseeing 54 other criminal charges against him that have so far not come to trial.Hunter Biden, by contrast, was prosecuted and convicted under the authority of the justice department, which is part of his father’s administration – an inconvenient fact that weakens Republican claims that it has been turned into a political weapon in the president’s hands.The result, some observers say, is that Hunter’s conviction may help the president in a close race, even though the personal cost of his son’s troubles is heavy.Read the full story here:Donald Trump is expected to meet with congressional Republicans in Washington DC this Thursday, as the GOP tries to present a united front ahead of the November elections.Trump is scheduled on Thursday to meet with House Republicans at the Capitol Hill Club, and then with Republican senators in the afternoon at the National Republican Senatorial Committee headquarters, according to reports.Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, and Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, are expected to attend.It will mark the first meeting between the former president and GOP lawmakers since he was found guilty in the hush-money trial.Here’s more on the latest slew of US sanctions against Russia over its military invasion of Russia.The package targets Chinese companies that have helped Russia pursue its war and raised the stakes for foreign financial institutions which work with sanctioned Russian entities.It also targets the Russian financial infrastructure in an attempt to limit the amount of money flowing in and out of the country.The announcement came shortly before Joe Biden arrived in Italy, where he and other G7 leaders are urgently looking at aiding Ukraine.Americans don’t have much faith in America right now. Or at least not in its institutions.In 2022, a Gallup poll found that Americans had experienced “significant declines” in trust in 11 of 16 major US institutions. The supreme court and the presidency saw the largest drops in public confidence – by 11% and 15%, respectively. Trust also fell in the medical system, banks, police, public schools and newspapers.Things didn’t improve in 2023: a follow-up poll found that levels of trust remained low, with none of the scores “worsening or improving meaningfully”.Public confidence waxes and wanes, but these numbers are notably bleak. Trust in institutions has “never been lower”, confirms Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor of the Gallup poll and the author of the 2022 report.This mistrust is not a one-time blip, a rough patch in an otherwise happy relationship between a country and its people. According to polling experts, it is partly the result of a decades-long effort by political leaders to erode public confidence in institutions such as science, media and government. And the consequences are serious. Not trusting the forces that govern their lives is detrimental to the health and wellbeing of individuals and communities, and makes the country less prepared to face a major crisis.“Trust is the grease that oils the gears and makes things work,” says Dr Marc Hetherington, professor of political science at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “Without it, everything is more difficult.”But how did we lose this trust in the first place? And is there a way to get it back?Read the full story: Trust in US institutions has ‘never beenl ower’ – here’s why that mattersThe latest comments by Karine Jean-Pierre mark a shift in position from September, when she was asked if Joe Biden would “pardon or commute his son if he’s convicted.”The White House press secretary said at the time:
      I’ve answered this question before. It was asked of me not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago. And I was very clear, and I said no.
      A pardon is an expression of forgiveness of a criminal offense that restores some rights, such as voting, that a person loses upon conviction, AP reports.A commutation reduces a sentence but leaves the conviction intact.The White House has not ruled out a possible commutation for Hunter Biden after a jury found him guilty on three federal gun crimes.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, speaking to reporters on Wednesday on Air Force One, said:
      As we all know, the sentencing hasn’t even been scheduled yet.
      She said she had not spoken to Joe Biden about the issue since the verdict was delivered on Tuesday. The president has previously ruled out pardoning his son.“He was very clear, very upfront, obviously very definitive,” Jean-Pierre said of Biden’s remarks about a potential pardon.But on a commutation, “I just don’t have anything beyond that,” she added.Here’s more from House speaker Mike Johnson’s briefing with reporters earlier today.Johnson was asked if he has spoken to Donald Trump about committing to “respecting the American tradition of peaceful transfer” of power and not attempting another January 6-style insurrection. Johnson replied:
      Of course he respects that, and we all do, and we’ve all talked about it ad nauseam.
      Ahead of the Republican-led House’s vote to hold attorney general Merrick Garland in contempt for his decision to withhold audio recordings of Joe Biden’s interviews with special counsel Robert Hur, House speaker Mike Johnson said:
      The contempt of Merrick Garland is a very important principle here … We have to defend the constitution. We have to defend the authority of Congress. We can’t allow the Department of Justice, an executive branch agency, to hide information from Congress …
      And the best evidence as chairman [Jim] Jordan said, was the audio recordings because they provide critical insight in what that transcript itself cannot provide. We have to know if the transcript is accurate … The attorney general doesn’t get to decide whether he hides the tape, and that’s what will be determined here.”
      Although more Americans support than oppose Joe Biden’s latest immigration executive order, public opinion on whether the order was tough on illegal immigration remains mixed, according to a new Monmouth University poll.According to the poll, 40% of Americans are in favor of Biden’s executive order while 27% disapprove – and 33% of Americans have no opinion.The report also found that support is evenly spread across all partisan groups – 44% of Republicans, 40% of Democrats and 38% of independents are in favor. Republicans (29%) and independents (30%) are slightly more likely than Democrats (22%) to oppose this move.The House speaker, Mike Johnson, criticized Joe Biden’s immigration policies, telling reporters on Wednesday:
      The Biden border catastrophe continues in spite of his window dressing of the executive order.
      Johnson was referring to Biden’s latest executive order that limits asylum seekers from crossing the US-Mexico border.He added:
      Nothing’s changed, of course. In fact, many have argued that this increased the incentives for people to try to come and, you know, avail themselves of the welcome mat that the Biden administration has put forward.
      The US has announced a new slew of sanctions on Russia over its military invasion of Ukraine.On Wednesday, the treasury and state departments announced sanctions targeting more than 300 targets including entities in Russia as well as in China, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates.In a statement following the sanctions, the US treasury secretary, Janet Yellen, said:
      Today’s actions strike at their remaining avenues for international materials and equipment, including their reliance on critical supplies from third countries …
      We are increasing the risk for financial institutions dealing with Russia’s war economy and eliminating paths for evasion, and diminishing Russia’s ability to benefit from access to foreign technology, equipment, software and IT services.
      Joe Biden has announced the reopening of the port of Baltimore after the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapsed in March, killing six construction workers.In a statement released via the White House, Biden said:
      I made clear that my administration would move heaven and earth to reopen the port of Baltimore – one of our nation’s largest shipping hubs. Today, thanks to the tireless work by the men and women in the Unified Command, the full navigation channel is now open to all vessel traffic, allowing a full return of commerce to the port of Baltimore …
      Our hearts remain with the families of the victims of the bridge collapse, and we will continue to stand with the community throughout this period of recovery.
      Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit back at the supreme court in a recent roundtable discussion in which she accused it of being in a “crisis of legitimacy” following a series of scandals that have surrounded several justices.The Guardian’s Lauren Gambino reports:Speaking during a roundtable discussion on Capitol Hill, the New York Democratic representative accused the court of “delegitimizing itself through its conduct”.“A group of anti-democratic billionaires with their own ideological and economic agenda has been working one of the three co-equal branches of government,” she said.Sustained scrutiny of the justices prompted the court to adopt its first code of ethics last year, but it lacks any form of enforcement. Meanwhile, public confidence in the court has plummeted to near historic lows.In the two years since it overturned Roe v Wade, eliminating the constitutional right to abortion, a decision that sparked fierce political backlash from voters across the ideological spectrum, the court has been rocked by ethics scandals involving two of the bench’s most conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.“The highest court in the land today has the lowest ethical standards,” said Jamie Raskin, a Democratic congressman from Maryland, and the ranking member of the House oversight committee, who joined Ocasio-Cortez in convening the discussion.For the full story, click here:In a press statement released ahead of the Senate vote, Democrats said:
      [The vote follows] a myriad of apparent ethical lapses by supreme court justices, which demonstrates the need for ethics reform.
      Last week, Justice Clarence Thomas belatedly admitted that some luxury vacation trips he took were paid for by Harlan Crow, a conservative billionaire donor.Those vacations included trips to Indonesia and a men’s club in California. Thomas’s admission comes more than a year after ProPublica first reported on the trips.Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito’s neutrality as a judge has been questioned in recent days after reports revealed that he said in a secret recording that one side of the US’s right-left divide has to prevail.Alito has also been at the center of several flag controversies, including an incident in which he appeared to fly an American flag upside down outside his home after the January 6 riots in 2021.Republicans in Congress are vowing to block Democrats’ push to enforce a code of ethics in the supreme court after reports of justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, accepting lavish gifts and travel opportunities.Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina senator and top Republican on the Senate judiciary committee, told NBC News that he will object to Democrats’ efforts to unanimously pass the bill.Although the chair of the judiciary committee, Senate majority whip Dick Durbin, said that he plans to make a unanimous consent request, the Illinois Democrat did voice doubts over whether the legislation will pass.“I think I know the outcome, but we’re going to go through the exercise to make sure that both parties are in the record,” Durbin said.Meanwhile, Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said at a recent roundtable discussion in Washington DC that the supreme court is in a “crisis of legitimacy” as a result of being “captured and corrupted by money and extremism”.Here are other developments in US politics:
      The Republican-lead House is scheduled to vote on whether to hold the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, in contempt for his decision to withhold audio recordings of Joe Biden’s interviews with special counsel Robert Hur.
      Joe Biden is travelling from Wilmington, Delaware, to Fasano, Italy, for the annual G7 summit.
      Hunter Biden has been found guilty on all three counts in his federal gun trial. More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Lindsey Graham vows to block Democrats’ supreme court ethics bill

      by

      The South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate judiciary committee, said that he will block Democrats’ attempts to pass an ethics bill to rein in the US supreme court.Graham told NBC News that he “will object” to the bill on Wednesday, meaning it will not move forward on its legislative journey.The Senate judiciary committee chairman, Dick Durbin, from Illinois, told reporters that Senate Democrats were working to unanimously move the bill forward, the Hill reported. Durbin co-authored the bill with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.“We’re planning on making a move on the floor this week to move the ethics bill for the supreme court,” Durbin said.It follows a series of scandals focusing on the rightwing justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in relation both to gifts and to their capacity to serve with political neutrality.Durbin added that “new evidence” might emerge concerning ethics on the supreme court, elaborating that the evidence “relates to the ethical considerations from some of the justices for gifts they’ve taken and not reported”, the Hill reported.US representatives have also criticized what they call a “crisis of legitimacy” affecting the court.While speaking at a round table on Capitol Hill in Washington DC on Tuesday, the New York progressive representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the court has been captured and corrupted “by money and extremism”.“A group of anti-democratic billionaires with their own ideological and economic agenda has been working one of the three co-equal branches of government,” she said.The Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, who was also at Tuesday’s round table, said: “The highest court in the land today has the lowest ethical standards.”In recent weeks, Alito has faced calls to recuse himself from election-related cases and for a broader investigation after a flag associated in modern times with the far right was reportedly flying above one of his homes.And Alito, along with his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, came under additional scrutiny after Alito said that one side in the US’s partisan left versus right ideology battle “has to win”, in remarks captured in a secret recording.Martha-Ann also criticized the LGBTQ+ Pride flag, as heard in the same recording.Thomas has repeatedly faced criticism for failing to disclose in the official record that he took lavish vacations paid for by the conservative billionaire Harlan Crow, ProPublica first reported. Thomas belatedly disclosed the luxury trips for the court record last week.Public confidence in the court has also swiftly fallen in the last year to near record lows, according to polling from Gallup. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Rightwing US supreme court justices are in trouble. So they’ve discovered feminism | Judith Levine

      by

      At the start of her rallies, Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who defeated the equal rights amendment, always thanked her husband, Fred, for letting her out of the house.Ah, those were the days.Husbands have lost their control. And, it would seem, none more than the poor schlubs on the bench of the supreme court of the United States.Before January 6, Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, the far-right activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, plunged deep into the “Stop the Steal” movement, which attempted to frame Joe Biden’s fair and free election as rigged. She sent dozens of texts to Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, egging him on to overturn the election. Later, she claimed Clarence had nothing to do with it.“Like so many married couples, we share many of the same ideals, principles, and aspirations for America,” Ginni Thomas told the Washington Free Beacon in early 2022. “But we have our own separate careers, and our own ideas and opinions too. Clarence doesn’t discuss his work with me, and I don’t involve him in my work.”Nevertheless, questioned by the congressional January 6 committee as to whether she conferred with anyone about the texts, she allowed that she’d spoken to her “best friend” – Clarence. She couldn’t remember the “specifics”, she said. But “my husband often administers spousal support to the wife that’s upset.”Meadows filed an amicus brief in Trump’s appeal to withhold documents from the investigators; the texts, including Ginni Thomas’s, were included in the subpoenaed materials. Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenter in the supreme court’s rejection of Trump’s appeal.Jane Sullivan Roberts – Mrs Chief Justice John Roberts – earned over $10m recruiting conservative government lawyers to elite law firms precisely during the years of her husband’s tenure on the court. Although some of these firms appear before the court, the Robertses insist that her work is her own and poses no conflict of interest for him. Anyway, according to a former colleague of Jane’s, nothing exchanged was more consequential than the chitchat at any Washington cocktail party.“Friends of John were mostly friends of Jane,” the colleague told Insider. “And while it certainly did not harm her access to top people to have John as her spouse, I never saw her ‘use’ that inappropriately.”Just affectionate give-and-take, like the uber-luxurious gifts bestowed on the Thomases by the rightwing billionaires Clarence met after ascending to the supreme court.And now we learn that an inverted American flag – ensign of Maga insurrectionists, carried by many during the Capitol riot – flew in front of Justice Samuel Alito’s home in January 2021, three days before Joe Biden’s swearing-in as president.But Alito – who is about to sign the ruling on whether Trump is immune from prosecution for inciting the riot or, for that matter, anything else he ever does – says he never touched, or apparently looked at or commented on, the flag. His wife, Martha-Ann, ran her opinion up the flagpole during a neighborly tiff. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” the justice said in an email to the New York Times. “It was briefly placed by Mrs Alito in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” She is her own woman.This is the same Samuel Alito who opined in Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1991 that requiring the husband’s consent for an abortion did not impose an undue burden on the woman, and in fact, served a compelling state interest. Different strokes for different folks.And then there’s Amy Coney Barrett, who served as a “handmaiden” for the male-supremacist Christian sect People of Praise, advising wives on submitting to the “headship” of their husbands.So here’s the ideology of the court’s conservative majority: a husband should rule over his wife except when he declares her independence because the ideologies she clearly shares with him might cause him trouble.The women on the court are not indulging in this ploy. Why not? “He does what he wants” might be more credible. It’s not that they’re good because they’re women. Two of them have scant opportunity for family-related conflicts of interest. Sonia Sotomayor is divorced. Elena Kagan never married. Neither of them has children. Meanwhile, a conservative law firm has filed an ethics complaint against Ketanji Brown Jackson for not disclosing income from her husband’s medical malpractice consulting. If the contention is true, her omission is illegal, not to mention unethical. But it would be a stretch to call it political. And Brown hasn’t blamed her husband.Jennifer Weiner recently argued in the New York Times that “Blame my wife,” an excuse employed by Republicans and Democrats alike, might indicate “the faintest glimmer of progress” – feminist progress. “When a Supreme Court justice blames his wife, he is also acknowledging that his wife has the ability to act on her own ideas, has a mind confoundingly of her own,” Weiner wrote.Nah. The men who stripped half the US population of a 50-year-old right of bodily autonomy have not osmosed feminism despite themselves. Rather, they are exploiting feminism: impersonating pro-feminist men when it serves them and screwing women (and the less powerful in general) when it doesn’t. Mr Nice Guy; no more Mr Nice Guy. That’s patriarchal privilege.The male justices are also implicitly invoking a right that feminists, along with Black and LGBTQ+ civil rights activists, conceived and won: the right to relational privacy. By contending that their professional thoughts and actions are unaffected by their wives’, the justices communicate that no one else knows what goes on inside their marriages and no one has the prerogative to eavesdrop on their breakfast table conversations or evaluate the meanings and effects of what is said there.The sanctity of privacy in intimate behavior, including the rights of married couples to use contraception, of queer people to have sex and marry each other and of pregnant people to end their pregnancies, did not spring from the heads of supreme court justices. But supreme court justices can take them away. In fact, these are the rights, and the cases involving them, that Thomas, in his concurring opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health, urged the court to “reconsider” – presumably to overturn, as it overturned Roe. Thomas did not mention whether Loving v Virginia, the 1967 case securing the right to interracial marriage, like his own, should be reconsidered. Maybe he needs to talk it over with Ginni.In March 1776 the first lady, Abigail Adams, wrote to her husband, President John Adams, exercising her influence as a highly placed political wife. She implored him to “Remember the Ladies” when he and the other founding fathers were declaring independence and writing the laws that would follow.But that’s just the famous part of the letter. “Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands,” Mrs Adams continued, playing on the language of freedom from colonial rule. “Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.”American feminists have rekindled that Rebelion. Some chose to make noise in front of Alito’s home to express their rage at his majority opinion in Dobbs. They wanted “to bring the protest to [the Alitos’] personal lives because the decisions affect our personal lives”, said one demonstrator. The personal is political, as much for the men in black robes as it is for the rest of us.
      Judith Levine is a Brooklyn journalist and essayist, a contributing writer to the Intercept, and the author of five books More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Red flag? Samuel Alito scandal casts further doubt on supreme court’s impartiality

      by

      With less than six months to go before America chooses its next president, the US supreme court finds itself in a profoundly unenviable position: not only has it been drawn into the thick of a volatile election, but swirling ethical scandals have cast doubt on its impartiality.The US supreme court’s discomfort worsened dramatically on Thursday night when the New York Times published a photograph of an upside-down American flag being flown outside the Alexandria, Virginia, home of the hard-right justice Samuel Alito. The photo was taken on 17 January 2021, days after the insurrection at the US Capitol and days before Joe Biden’s inauguration.At the time, upside-down flags were proliferating as a symbol of Donald Trump’s false claim that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from him. That one of the nine most powerful justices in the country – who has potential to wield enormous influence over the 2024 election – had a “stop the steal” icon flapping on his front lawn was, to put it mildly, incendiary.“There’s little doubt that the supreme court will play a large role in the 2024 election, and you have to now ask whether the flag incident will forever cloud the public’s view of its impartiality in those cases,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a non-partisan group advocating reform.The supreme court memorably handed the US presidency to George W Bush in its 2000 ruling Bush v Gore. Though no individual case so far this year has risen to that level, there is no doubt that the justices are deeply mired in the 2024 cycle.They have already decided that Trump cannot be ejected from the ballot for his role in the January 6 attack under the 14th amendment block on insurrectionists holding office. By the end of their term in June they are also set to rule on two other critical cases that go to the heart of Trump’s fitness to govern, and hence the presidential outcome.The first asks whether Trump has presidential immunity in the federal criminal prosecution over his “stop the steal” antics in 2020/21. The other, which could also determine whether he can be tried for his attempt to overturn the election, looks at whether January 6 rioters can be charged under the obstruction statute.All of that before we even get to the election itself, and the possibility of renewed trouble in November should there be close and contested counts in key battleground states. As one of the justices expressly warned in the 14th amendment case, further insurrections were not impossible.View image in fullscreen“I don’t know how much we can infer from the fact that we haven’t seen anything like this before [that] we’re not going to see something in the future,” the justice said. His identity? Samuel Alito.Until last Thursday, there had been plenty of talk about whether the supreme court was ethically equipped to tackle fundamental questions that could drastically change the course of November’s election. But most of it concerned Clarence Thomas.His wife, Ginni, is a hard-right activist who was an active participant in efforts to stop the certification of Biden’s victory. Yet Thomas has consistently refused to recuse himself from supreme court cases relating to January 6, even ones which directly invoked Ginni.After Thursday, we now have not one but two of the conservative justices whose spouses have engaged in apparent pro-Trump political activity. In his self-defense, Alito told the New York Times: “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” putting it all down to a spat his wife, Martha-Ann, was having with neighbors who had defaced a Trump lawn sign.Some law scholars were prepared to give Alito the benefit of the doubt. Stephen Gillers, emeritus professor at New York University law school, said that he did not believe Alito knew the upside-down flag was flying, or that it was a coded message for “stop the steal”.“While Alito’s explanation for how it did happen is hard to believe, it is more credible than the view that he knowingly chose to fly the flag upside down knowing its import.”But there is no doubt that the optics of the flag are atrocious. As Gillers also noted: “It’s obviously so damaging to the court, whose reputation is already suffering.”The highest court has taken such a battering over its ethical standards – mostly relating to private jets, vacations and other material benefits rather than political activities – that it has been forced to adopt its first-ever ethical code. It says that a justice must recuse him or herself from a case where they have a “personal bias or prejudice”.That might involve their spouse being party to the proceeding or having an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding, the code states.Given what we now know about the behavior and convictions of both Ginni and Martha-Ann, it is arguable that there is at least a conversation to be had about whether Justices Thomas and Alito should disqualify themselves from any case relating to January 6. But there’s the rub.Under the new code, the supreme court polices itself on all ethical matters. Not only that – each individual justice polices him or herself, in effect sitting in judgment on themselves with even their eight colleagues having no say.Unsurprisingly, in the six months that the new code has been in existence very few justices have recused themselves. Where they have, only the liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson have publicly explained their decisions.It all points towards more storms ahead. It is now all but inevitable there will be calls for both Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves as election year proceeds.“The fact that two justices live in households with people who believe the 2020 election was stolen is astounding and disturbing,” Roth said. “Will they heed the calls for recusal? Probably not. Is there any way to force them? No.” More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Clarence Thomas: Washington is a ‘hideous place’ of ‘nastiness and lies’

      by

      Clarence Thomas told attendees at a judicial conference Friday that he and his wife have faced “nastiness” and “lies” over the last several years and decried Washington DC as a “hideous place”.The US supreme court justice spoke at a conference attended by judges, attorneys and other court personnel in the 11th circuit judicial conference, which hears federal cases from Alabama, Florida and Georgia. He made the comments pushing back on his critics in response to a question about working in a world that seems mean-spirited.“I think there’s challenges to that,” Thomas said. “We’re in a world and we – certainly my wife and I the last two or three years it’s been – just the nastiness and the lies, it’s just incredible.“But you have some choices. You don’t get to prevent people from doing horrible things or saying horrible things. But one, you have to understand and accept the fact that they can’t change you, unless you permit that.”Thomas has faced criticisms about accepting luxury trips from a Republican donor without reporting them. Last year, he maintained that he didn’t have to report the trips paid for by one of “our dearest friends”.His wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, has faced criticism for using her Facebook page to amplify unsubstantiated claims of corruption by Joe Biden as the Democrat seeks a second term as president.He did not discuss the content of the criticisms directly, but said that “reckless” people in Washington will “bomb your reputation”.“They don’t bomb you necessarily, but they bomb your reputation or your good name or your honor,” Thomas said. “And that’s not a crime. But they can do as much harm that way.”During the appearance, Thomas was asked questions by US district judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, one of his former law clerks, who was later appointed to the federal bench. During his hour-long appearance, the longest-serving justice on the court discussed a wide range of topics including the lessons of his grandfather, his friendship with former colleagues, and his belief that court writings and discussions should be more accessible for “regular people”.Thomas, who has spent most of his working life in Washington DC, also discussed his dislike of it.“I think what you are going to find, and especially in Washington, people pride themselves on being awful. It is a hideous place as far as I’m concerned,” Thomas said.Thomas said that it is one of the reasons he and his wife enjoy traveling in their recreational vehicle.“You get to be around regular people who don’t pride themselves in doing harmful things, merely because they have the capacity to do it or because they disagree,” Thomas said.An RV used by Thomas has also become a source of controversy. Senate Democrats in October issued a report saying that most of the $267,000 loan obtained by Thomas to buy a high-end motorcoach appears to have been forgiven.Thomas did not discuss the court’s high-profile caseload.The justice said he believed it is important to use language in court rulings so the law is accessible to the average person.“The regular people I think are being disenfranchised sometimes by the way that we talk about cases,” Thomas said.He wasn’t the only justice making a speaking appearance on Friday.Brett Kavanaugh said on Friday that US history shows court decisions unpopular in their time later can become part of the “fabric of American constitutional law”.The justice was speaking at a conference attended by judges, attorneys and other court personnel in the fifth US circuit court of appeals, which covers Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi and is one of the most conservative circuits. More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      John Oliver offers to pay Clarence Thomas $1m a year if he resigns from supreme court

      by

      The late-night talkshow host John Oliver has offered to pay Clarence Thomas $1m annually – as well as give him a $2m tour bus – if the Republican judge resigns from the US supreme court.Oliver made the proposal on Sunday’s episode of his HBO show Last Week Tonight, saying the supreme court justice had 30 days to accept or it would expire.The British-born, progressive comedian’s offer came after a steady drumbeat of media investigations in the previous several months established that Thomas failed to disclose that political benefactors bought him lavish vacation travel and real estate for his mother. Thomas also failed to disclose – as required – that he allowed school fees for a family member to be paid off and had been provided a loan to buy a luxury motor coach, all after openly complaining about the need to raise supreme court justices’ salaries.As a result, Thomas’s impartiality came into question after he sided with the contentious ruling that eliminated the federal abortion rights once provided by the Roe v Wade case.He also recently listened to arguments over whether Donald Trump can be removed from states’ ballots in the presidential election after the former president’s supporters – whom he told to “fight like hell” – staged the January 6 attack at the US Capitol in Washington DC. Thomas resisted pressure to recuse himself from matters pertaining to the Capitol attack, even though his wife, Ginni Thomas, is a conservative political activist who has endorsed false claims from Trump and his supporters that the 2020 election he lost to Joe Biden was stolen from him – which in turn fueled January 6.Oliver alluded to all of those circumstances as he extended his lucrative offer to Thomas, saying: “Lot on your plate right now, from stripping away women’s rights to hearing January 6 cases … and you deserve a break, you know, away from the meanness of Washington. So you can be surrounded by the regular folks whose lives you made demonstrably worse for decades.”The host suggested that Thomas could upgrade his “favorite mode of travel” by signing a contract requiring him to step down from the supreme court in exchange for $1m annually from Oliver along with the tour bus, which is outfitted with a king-sized bed, a fireplace and four televisions.Oliver joked that Thomas possibly feared that making such a trade might attract negative judgment from one of his top benefactors: the Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow, who was reported to have maintained a private collection of Nazi memorabilia that included a pair of paintings by Adolf Hitler.But Oliver said: “That’s the beauty of friendship, Clarence. If they’re real friends, they’ll love you no matter what your job is. So I guess this might be the perfect way to find out who your real friends actually are.“So that’s the offer – $1m a year, Clarence. And a brand new condo on wheels. And all you have to do … is sign the contract and get the fuck off the supreme court,” Oliver remarked. “The clock starts now – 30 days, Clarence. Let’s do this!”The yearly salary for supreme court justices – whose appointments are for life – is $298,500.Neither Thomas nor the supreme court immediately commented publicly on Oliver’s offer. Oliver acknowledged he could end up going on “stand-up tours … for years” to be able to afford paying Thomas’s retirement if the justice accepts the proposal.The arch-conservative is the longest-serving member of a supreme court dominated 6-3 by rightwingers. Thomas has been there since his 1991 confirmation, which was marked by testimony from Anita Hill, who accused him of sexual harassment while he supervised her in two separate jobs, at the US Department of Education and at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. More