US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 250 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      For the sake of all of us, Sonia Sotomayor needs to retire from the US supreme court | Mehdi Hasan

      by

      Forget Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It is Sonia Sotomayor who is the greatest liberal to sit on the supreme court in my adult lifetime. The first Latina to hold the position of justice, she has blazed a relentlessly progressive trail on the highest bench in the land.Whether it was her lone dissent in a North Carolina voting rights case in 2016 (“the court’s conclusion … is a fiction”); her ingenious referencing of Ta-Nehisi Coates, James Baldwin and WEB DuBois in another 2016 dissent over unreasonable searches and seizures; or her withering observation at the Dobbs oral argument in 2021 (“Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the constitution and its reading are just political acts?”), Sotomayor has stood head and shoulders above both her liberal and conservative colleagues on the bench for the past 15 years.And so it is with good reason that she has been called the “conscience of the supreme court” (the Nation), “the truth teller of the supreme court” (New York Times) and “the real liberal queen of the court” (Above the Law).I happen to agree 100% with all of those descriptions. But – and it pains me to write these words – I also believe it is time for Sotomayor to retire.Why?Okay, now it is time to remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To recall how RBG, who had survived two bouts of cancer, refused to quit the court despite calls to do so from leading liberals during Barack Obama’s second term office. To hark back to her insistence, in multiple interviews, that it was “misguided” to insist she retire and that she would only stand down “when it’s time”. To recollect how, on her deathbed in 2020, she told her granddaughter that her “most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed” – and how it made no difference whatsoever! Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett as RBG’s replacement just eight days after her death, and Senate Republicans confirmed Barrett to RBG’s vacant seat just eight days before election day.With Joe Biden trailing Trump in several swing states and Democrats also in danger of losing their razor-thin majority in the Senate, are we really prepared for history to repeat itself? Sotomayor will turn 70 in June. Of course, only Sotomayor knows the full status of her health, still it is public knowledge that she has had type 1 diabetes since she was seven; had paramedics called to her home; and is the only sitting justice to have, reportedly, traveled with a medic. To be clear: she could easily – and God willing – survive a potential Trump second term and still be dishing out dissents from the bench come 2029.But why take that risk? Why not retire now? Why not quit the bench at the same age that justices in Belgium, Australia and Japan are forced to do so?Let’s deal with the three most obvious objections.First, wouldn’t a replacement for Sotomayor that Senator Joe Manchin has to approve be less progressive, and more centrist, than our sole Latina, super-progressive justice? Perhaps. But, again, consider the alternative. Would we rather Biden replace Sotomayor with a centrist in 2024 … or Trump replace her with a far-right Federalist Society goon in 2025? Or, what if Trump doesn’t win but the Republican party takes control of the Senate and blocks a second-term Biden from replacing her between 2025 and 2028?Second, is there really any difference between a 6-3 conservative majority on the court and a 7-2 majority? Isn’t all lost already? Not quite. The damage to our democracy from a 7-2 hard-right court would be on a whole other and existential level. Yes, 6-3 has been a disaster for our progressive priorities (Dobbs! Bruen! Kennedy!) but there have also been a handful of key 5-4 victories (Redistricting! Razor wire at the border! Ghost guns!) in cases where Roberts plus one other conservative have come over from the dark side. None of that happens in a 7-2 court. The hard-right conservatives win not just most of the time but every single time.Third, how can anyone on the left dare ask the first, and only, Latina justice to quit the supreme court?It’s simple. Women in general, and Latinas especially, will suffer most from a 7-2 supreme court. It is because I am so worried about the future of minority rights in this country that I – reluctantly – want Sotomayor to step aside.This has nothing to do with her race or her gender. Forget RBG (again). Consider Stephen Breyer. You remember Breyer, right? The bookish and bespectacled liberal justice who quit the supreme court in 2022, at the age of 83, in part because of an intense pressure campaign from the left.The fact that he was a white man didn’t shield him from criticism – or from calls for him to stand down. In 2021, the progressive group Demand Justice sent a billboard truck to circle the supreme court building with the message: “Breyer, retire.” I joined in, too. “Retire, retire, retire,” I said in a monologue for my Peacock show in 2021. “Or history may end up judging you, Justice Breyer.”So why is it okay to pressure Breyer to retire but not Sotomayor? This time round, Demand Justice isn’t taking a position on whether an older liberal justice should quit while a Democratic president and Senate can still replace them and, as HuffPost reports, “on the left, there is little open debate about whether she should retire.”Democrats, it seems, still don’t seem keen on wielding power or influence over the highest court in the nation. In 2013, Barack Obama met with RBG for lunch and tried to nudge her into retiring, but as the New York Times later reported, Obama “did not directly bring up the subject of retirement to Justice Ginsburg”.Compare and contrast with Donald Trump. The finance journalist David Enrich, in his book Dark Towers, reveals how the Trump family carried out a “coordinated White House charm offensive” to persuade Justice Anthony Kennedy to retire in 2018. Trump himself, according to Vanity Fair, “worked for months to assure Kennedy his legacy would be in good hands”.The offensive was a success. Out went self-styled moderate Kennedy, in came the hard-right political operative Brett Kavanaugh.If there is to be a change to the supreme court in 2024, Biden and the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, have only a few months left to make it happen. And yet they don’t seem too bothered about Sotomayor’s age or health. Last week, the White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, called it “a personal decision for her to make”.A personal decision? The prospect of a 7-2 conservative supreme court, with a far-right Federalist Soceity apparatchik having taken “liberal queen” Sotomayor’s seat on the bench, should fill us all with dread.Biden, elected Democrats, and liberals and progressives across the board should be both publicly and privately encouraging Sotomayor to consider what she wants her legacy to be, to remember what happened with RBG, and to not take any kind of gamble with the future of our democracy.If insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results, then I’m sorry but a liberal supreme court justice about to enter her 70s and refusing to retire on a Democratic president and Democratic Senate’s watch is nothing short of insane.
      Mehdi Hasan is the CEO and editor-in-chief of Zeteo More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court seems skeptical of arguments against abortion drug mifepristone

      by

      The supreme court on Tuesday seemed skeptical of arguments made by anti-abortion doctors asking it to roll back the availability of mifepristone, a drug typically used in US medication abortion. The arguments were part of the first major abortion case to reach the justices since a 6-3 majority ruled in 2022 to overturn Roe v Wade and end the national right to abortion.The rightwing groups that brought the case argued that the justices should roll back measures taken since 2016 by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expand the drug’s availability. A decision in the anti-abortion doctors’ favor would apply nationwide, including in states that protect abortion access, and would probably make the drug more difficult to acquire.Medication abortion now accounts for almost two-thirds of abortions performed in the US.Much of Tuesday’s arguments focused on whether the anti-abortion doctors who sued the FDA, a coalition known as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, have standing, or the right to bring the case in the first place. The doctors claim they will suffer harm if they have to treat women who experience complications from mifepristone, an argument the Biden administration, which appealed the case to the court, has rejected as too speculative.The US solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, who defended the FDA, argued that the doctors do not come within “100 miles” of having the legal right to bring the case, arguing that their case rests on a “long chain of remote contingencies”. Under their argument, Prelogar said, a woman would have to face complications from a medication abortion that were so serious that she needed emergency care at a hospital – an unlikely scenario, given mifepristone’s proven safety record – and then end up in the care of an anti-abortion doctor who was somehow forced into taking care of her in such a way it violated the doctor’s conscience.A number of the justices – even the ones who ruled to overturn Roe two years ago – seemed skeptical that the doctors met the threshold required to establish standing. Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh seemed to seek assurances that the doctors represented by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine were already covered by laws that protect doctors from having to undertake cases that violated their consciences.Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to express concern over the sweeping implications of the doctors’ request of the court. “This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule or any other federal government rule,” he said.The supreme court has historically rejected standing arguments based on such potential harm. However, Justice Clarence Thomas raised the possibility that perhaps the court’s own threshold for standing was too strict.His fellow conservative Samuel Alito also seemed incredulous of Prelogar’s argument. “Is there anybody who can sue and get a judicial ruling on whether what FDA did was lawful?” he asked. “Shouldn’t somebody be able to challenge that in court?”Since the fall of Roe in June 2022, more than a dozen states have banned abortion. The result has been legal and medical chaos. Dozens of women have come forward to say that they were denied medically necessary abortions. Abortion clinics in states that still allow abortion are overwhelmed by the flood of patients fleeing states with bans. More than 1m abortions were performed in the US in 2023, a record high.The availability of medication abortions, which are usually performed using mifepristone as well as another drug called misoprostol, has helped soften the impact of the bans. Telehealth medication abortions, permitted by the FDA since the pandemic, helped ease some of the burden on abortion clinics; shield laws, passed in a handful of states, even allowed providers to offer telehealth abortions to people living in states with abortion bans.But the accessibility of medication abortion also made it the next target of the anti-abortion movement after Roe was overturned. In 2022 the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine challenged the FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone. The group, which includes anti-abortion doctors and is being defended by the Christian powerhouse legal firm the Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that the FDA overstepped its authority and that mifepristone is unsafe. (More than 100 studies have concluded that mifepristone can be safely used to terminate a pregnancy.)A federal judge ruled in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a move that could have yanked mifepristone off the market entirely. But an appeals court narrowed that ruling, deciding that it was too late to challenge mifepristone’s original 2000 approval.Instead, the appeals court ruled to rewind later measures taken by the FDA that expanded access to mifepristone, including by removing requirements that abortion providers dispense mifepristone in person. A recent analysis found 16% of all US abortions are facilitated through telehealth.Mifepristone’s availability has remained unchanged as litigation has progressed.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDuring oral arguments, Thomas and Alito also raised the specter of the Comstock Act, a 19th-century anti-vice law that bans the mailing of abortion-related materials. Long regarded as a relic, the Comstock Act has now seen a resurgence of post-Roe support among anti-abortion activists who believe it is the key to a de facto nationwide abortion ban.“How do you respond to an argument that mailing your product and advertising it would violate the Comstock Act?” Thomas asked Jessica Ellsworth, a lawyer for Danco Laboratories, a manufacturer of mifepristone.After some back and forth, Ellsworth told Thomas: “That statute has not been forced for nearly 100 years and I don’t believe that this case presents an opportunity for the court to opine on the reach of the statute.”Regardless of what the supreme court decides, Americans will still be able to order mifepristone online from suppliers who help people “self-manage” their own abortions. A study released on Monday found self-managed abortions had soared since Roe fell.Outrage over the overturning of Roe has turned abortion into a key election issue, since most Americans support at least some degree of abortion access. Voters in multiple states, including conservative strongholds, have voted in ballot initiatives in favor of abortion rights; roughly a dozen states are now expected to put abortion-related ballot measures to voters come November. Democrats are hoping that the issue will bolster turnout for their candidates, including Joe Biden.The supreme court is expected to issue a ruling in the mifepristone case by the summer, just months ahead of the 2024 elections.The case’s consequences could stretch far beyond abortion. If the justices greenlight attempts by ideologically driven groups to second-guess the authority of the FDA, the agency’s regulation of all manner of drugs – such as contraception and vaccines – could be challenged in court.Ellsworth, the Danco attorney, argued that the doctors’ argument in the case “is so inflexible it would upend not just mifepristone, but virtually every drug approval”. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge imposes gag order on Trump in hush-money trial – as it happened

      by

      The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money criminal case has imposed a gag order that forbids him to attack witnesses, prosecutors or jurors involved in the criminal trial that’s due to begin next month, the New York Times has just reported.The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, asked the judge, Juan Merchan, to impose the order.The trial in New York is scheduled to begin on 15 April.More details soon.The supreme court heard arguments in a case brought by a conservative group that sought to restrict access to abortion medication mifepristone. The justices seemed skeptical of claims that the drug should be restricted due to its health risks and the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory decisions, after an attorney representing the drug’s manufacturer warned that a court ruling against it could have ripple effects across the entire pharmaceutical industry. Meanwhile, an attorney for the Biden administration said cutting off access would “inflict grave harm on women across the nation”. By the hearing’s end, only conservative justice Samuel Alito sounded open to the challenge, and a ruling in the case is expected this summer.Here’s what else happened today:
      Donald Trump is reportedly prohibited from attacking witnesses, prosecutors or jurors in his trial on hush money-related charges under a gag order handed down by judge Juan Merchan.
      Robert F Kennedy Jr announced attorney and philanthropist Nicole Shanahan as his running mate in an event in Oakland, California.
      Joe Biden said the federal government will “move heaven and earth” to reopen the port of Baltimore and rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which collapsed early this morning after being struck by a container ship.
      Ken Paxton, Texas’s attorney general and a force in the conservative legal world, reached a deal with prosecutors to resolve securities fraud charges.
      A federal appeals judge who ruled against mifepristone last year has ties to one of the groups trying to keep it off the market.
      Donald Trump-supporting Super Pac Make America Great Again Inc unleashed an attack on Robert F Kennedy Jr, after he announces Nicole Shanahan as his running mate.“Robert F Kennedy Jr is a far-left radical that supports reparations, backs the Green New Deal, and wants to ban fracking. It’s no surprise he would pick a Biden donor leftist as his running mate,” said spokesperson Alex Pfeiffer.Third party candidates with dedicated followings can add an element of unpredictability to tight presidential races – just ask Al Gore. But despite Team Trump’s vitriol, polls have shown Kennedy may sap support from Biden in states where he’s on the ballot.The Democratic National Committee has gone on the attack against Kennedy’s campaign, including by filing a complaint accusing him of improperly coordinating with a political action committee:Independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr has announced attorney and wealthy philanthropist Nicole Shanahan as his running mate.He made the announcement in Oakland, California, at an event attended by hundreds of supporters, as well as protesters outraged by his opposition to vaccines.Wendy Bloom, a registered nurse who has worked in pediatric cancer units for 37 years, said she disagrees with many of Kennedy’s ideas, and was particularly enraged by his opposition to vaccines.“Besides being anti-vaccines, he’s not pro-science, and anti-research,” she said. She also dismissed the choice of Shanahan as a running mate.“His choice of VP tells us everything we need to know,” Bloom said. “She has no experience. She’s just a wealthy individual can help raise money. Voters deserve someone with experience.”Kennedy supporter Marilyn Chin, 71, said she voted Democrat for most of her life, but is now supporting Kennedy.“Get out of the duopoly,” she said. “Don’t vote Republican, don’t vote Democrat, start looking for something else.”In seeking a gag order against Donald Trump, Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg’s office argued the former president had a “longstanding history of attacking witnesses, investigators, prosecutors, judges, and others involved in legal proceedings against him”, the New York Times reports.Judge Juan Merchan agreed, writing in the order that, “his statements were threatening, inflammatory, denigrating.”The Times notes that earlier today, Trump called his former fixer Michael Cohen “death”, in a post on Truth Social – just the sort of statement that Merchan’s gag order is meant to prohibit.The supreme court heard arguments in a case that sought to restrict access to abortion medication mifepristone, and seemed skeptical of claims that the drug should be restricted due to its risks and the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory decisions. An attorney representing the drug’s manufacturer warned that a court ruling against the drug could have ripple effects across the entire pharmaceutical industry, while an attorney for the Biden administration said cutting off access would “inflict grave harm on women across the nation”. By the hearing’s end, only conservative justice Samuel Alito sounded open to the challenge, and a ruling in the case is expected this summer.Here’s what else happened today:
      Joe Biden said the federal government will “move heaven and earth” to reopen the port of Baltimore and rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge, which collapsed early this morning after being struck by a container ship.
      Ken Paxton, Texas’s attorney general and a force in the conservative legal world, reached a deal with prosecutors to resolve securities fraud charges.
      A federal appeals judge who ruled against mifepristone last year has ties to one of the groups trying to keep it off the market.
      The judge in Donald Trump’s hush money criminal case has imposed a gag order that forbids him to attack witnesses, prosecutors or jurors involved in the criminal trial that’s due to begin next month, the New York Times has just reported.The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, asked the judge, Juan Merchan, to impose the order.The trial in New York is scheduled to begin on 15 April.More details soon.Liz Cheney, the Donald Trump foe who ended up being forced out of Congress due to her opposition to the former president, also described NBC’s elevation of McDaniel as a danger, the Guardian’s Martin Pengelly reports:The Republican National Committee chair turned NBC politics analyst Ronna McDaniel “enabled criminality and depravity” in her support for Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, the former congresswoman Liz Cheney said as controversy swirled over McDaniel’s media role.“Ronna facilitated Trump’s corrupt fake elector plot and his effort to pressure Michigan officials not to certify the legitimate election outcome,” Cheney, a Republican who was vice-chair of the House January 6 committee, wrote on social media.“She spread his lies and called January 6 ‘legitimate political discourse’. That’s not ‘taking one for the team’. It’s enabling criminality and depravity.”McDaniel rose in Republican politics as a member of the powerful Romney family before reportedly dropping the name at Trump’s behest and becoming RNC chair in 2017.In February 2022, the RNC said Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, the other anti-Trump Republican on the committee that investigated the deadly attack on Congress on 6 January 2021, were engaged in the “persecution of ordinary citizens engaged in legitimate political discourse”.Cheney lost her seat in Congress that year. Kinzinger chose to retire. McDaniel was eased out of the RNC last month, to be replaced in part by Lara Trump, the former president’s daughter-in-law.The White House said that meetings over the last two days between the US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, and Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, have been “productive”.The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, yesterday canceled a high-level delegation from Israel to the White House to discuss Rafah, with the visit meant to take place today. He withdrew his agreement for talks after the US abstained from – rather than vetoed – a UN security council resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and the release of hostages held by Hamas.Gallant was already in Washington for longer-planned talks at a lower level. Meanwhile, in the Middle East earlier today, Israel recalled its negotiators from Doha, in Qatar, after deeming mediated talks on a Gaza truce “at a dead end” due to demands by Hamas, Reuters reported earlier, citing an Israeli official.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said to reporters board Air Force One moments ago: “We are committed to supporting Israel in its fight against Hamas … We cannot expect Israel to live under active threat.” She added that it was critical for Israel to do “whatever is possible” to protect civilians in Rafah.There, about 1.7 million Palestinians are trapped under Israeli siege and suffering bombardment and food deprivation as international talks about a ceasefire and access for more aid founder.Aid agencies and international bodies including United Nations officials have said that people stranded further north in Gaza are on the brink of famine.The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, has just been speaking with reporters aboard Air Force One, on the way to Raleigh, North Carolina.Joe Biden and the vice-president, Kamala Harris, are holding a joint event there to talk about healthcare.Reporters were firing off their questions, in a short gaggle on a short flight. Jean-Pierre is confirming the US president’s position is he will “move heaven and earth” to reopen the port and rebuild the bridge.She’s being asked about the state of US infrastructure but emphasizes that although the government pledges to work with Congress for funding to rebuild the bridge, the search and rescue effort that’s still under way in Baltimore is the main focus.Here’s what Yale University historian Timothy Snyder had to say about the danger of NBC News hiring former RNC chair Ronna McDaniel, as told by the Guardian’s Martin Pengelly:The former Republican National Committee chair turned NBC politics analyst Ronna McDaniel “tried to disassemble our democracy” by supporting Donald Trump’s electoral fraud lies and should not be given such a media role, a leading historian said amid uproar over the appointment.“What NBC has done is they’ve invited into what should be a normal framework someone who doesn’t believe that framework should exist at all,” Timothy Snyder, a Yale professor and author of On Tyranny, told MSNBC, part of the network now employing McDaniel.“What NBC has done of its own volition is bring into a very important conversation about democracy, one which is going to take place for the next seven months or so, someone who … tried to disassemble our democracy. Who personally took part in an attempt to undo the American system.”NBC announced the hire on Friday. Carrie Budoff Brown, the senior vice-president for politics, said McDaniel would contribute analysis “across all NBC News platforms”.On Sunday, McDaniel told Meet the Press Joe Biden won the 2020 election “fair and square”, adding that she did “not think violence should be in our political discourse”.NBC News will drop former Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel after an outcry from its top talent over her promotion of Donald Trump’s false claims of fraud in the 2020 election, Puck reports:McDaniel’s hiring by the network attracted criticism from former lawmakers and historians, who argued they were elevating a voice who had helped Trump attack US democracy. On Sunday, McDaniel acknowledged that the 2020 election had not been stolen, though maintained it was acceptable to say there were “problems” with the vote:Joe Biden did not say when he expected the Francis Scott Key Bridge to be rebuilt or, more crucially for the nation’s economy, the port of Baltimore to be able to resume operations.The president also gave no update on the six people still missing from the collapse, but said the search and rescue operation to find them is a “top priority”.For the latest on this developing story, follow our live blog:Joe Biden says he has instructed the federal government to “move heaven and earth” to rebuild the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore and reopen its economically vital port.The government will also cover the cost of the reconstruction, the president added in a speech from the White House.“I’m directing my team to move heaven and earth to reopen the port and rebuild the bridge as soon as humanly possible,” Biden said.“We’re going to work with our partners in Congress to make sure the state gets the support it needs. It’s my intention that federal government will pay for the entire cost of reconstructing that bridge, and I expect the Congress to support my effort. It’s gonna take some time, and people of Baltimore can count on us so to stick with them at every step of the way till the port is reopened and the bridge is rebuilt.”The port is currently closed due to the span’s collapse, which occurred early this morning after the cargo ship Dali collided with it. The president noted that 15,000 workers rely on the its operations, and “we’re gonna do everything we can to protect those jobs and help those workers”.As we wait for Joe Biden to begin his speech on the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, here are some scenes from earlier today in Baltimore: More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      One Way Back review: Christine Blasey Ford faces down Brett Kavanaugh again

      by

      In September 2018, Christine Blasey Ford testified that Brett Kavanaugh, then an intermediate appellate judge nominated by Donald Trump to the US supreme court, sexually assaulted her 36 years earlier when they were high school students, fixtures of the suburban-DC country club set.“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” Ford, then 51, told the Washington Post. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”Kavanaugh vehemently denied it. He also professed his penchants for suds.“We drank beer … I liked beer,” the judge memorably told Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, at his Senate hearing. Pressed by Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota over whether he had ever blacked out because of drinking beer, Kavanaugh ratcheted up the heat. On SNL, Matt Damon memorialized the rabid performance. PJ, Squi, Handsy Hank and Gang-Bang Greg: all are now part of TV lore. The Senate confirmed Kavanaugh anyway, 50-48, a party-line vote.Ford now returns to retell her story, in One Way Back: A Memoir. In essence, she dares Kavanaugh to sue her for defamation. Both know truth constitutes an absolute defense.Kavanaugh is not a “consummately honest person”, Ford writes. “The fact is, he was there in the room with me that night in 1982. And I believe he knows what happened. Even if it’s hazy from the alcohol, I believe he must know.”Ensconced on the high court, Kavanaugh holds his peace.Ford is a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a faculty member of Stanford medical school. She is an avid surfer. Metallica is her favourite band. She invokes personal circumstance to explain why she delayed coming forward, electing not to bring her story to the attention of law enforcement as Kavanaugh rose in the Washington legal firmament.“Honestly, if it hadn’t been the supreme court – if my attacker had been running for a local office, for example – I probably wouldn’t have said anything,” Ford writes, adding that this is “a sad, scary thing to admit”.From Kavanaugh’s clerkship to Anthony Kennedy, his immediate predecessor on the supreme court, to his time in the White House of George W Bush and on the US court of appeals, Ford stayed silent. Even with her explanation, the reader is left wondering why.Ford also sheds light on her own college days.“I’d tried mushrooms and pot occasionally before, but now also explored MDMA, which helped me get outside of myself,” she writes, adding: “At the time, I just knew that they seemed to call bullshit on everything, including my self-esteem issues … I never got into anything harder, since cocaine didn’t help with my anxiety and heroin never crossed my path until I was out of college, and by that point I’d kind of missed the window of experimentation that heroin would have required.”Should any rightwingers seeking vengeance think of pouncing on such admissions, it should be noted that Trumpworld is littered with tales of drugs and alcohol. Consider the very public cases of Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former lawyer, and Ronny Jackson, the Trump White House physician turned congressman from Texas. The GOP likes to hound Hunter Biden, who has struggled with addiction. But he never held office.For Ford, the Kavanaugh confirmation fight took a heavy personal toll. There were threats on her person and family. There were wounds to her psyche. One day, she recalls, she stared at a construction site and imagined it to be a Lego set. “That’s so cool,” she thought. “I wish I was a construction worker. Perhaps people were right. Perhaps I was crazy.”Ford writes favorably of meeting Anita Hill, the staffer who in 1991 confronted Clarence Thomas over his alleged sexual harassment, stoking another epically nasty supreme court nomination fight. Like Kavanaugh, Thomas was confirmed. In 2019, in the aftermath of the Kavanaugh fight, Hill told Ford time can help salve wounds.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFord’s politics shade left. In One Way Back, she records her satisfaction with the “blue wave” of 2018, “progressive wins” and in particular the victory in a New York House race that year of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Nancy Pelosi, the former speaker, praises One Way Back on its jacket. So does Hill.Kavanaugh is a consequential and controversial figure. In 2022, he cast his lot with four other conservatives in Dobbs v Jackson, voting to overturn Roe v Wade. Those five justices eviscerated the concept of a constitutionally protected right to privacy. In a separate concurrence, Kavanaugh said that in doing so the court had not undercut precedents protecting contraception, interracial marriage and same-sex unions. Other justices differed.The tremors of Dobbs reverberate across the political divide. In the 2022 midterms, a much-anticipated red wave failed to materialize, thanks in part to Dobbs. In reliably Republican Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio, voters have conferred legal protections for abortion rights.On Capitol Hill, Pelosi’s successors as House speaker are also subject to the whims of Republican zealots. Kevin McCarthy is no longer even a congressman. Mike Johnson holds the gavel by the narrowest of margins. In February, Democrats flipped the seat previously held by George Santos, the indicted fabulist. Postmortems found that abortion rights played an outsized role in that Republican defeat. The threat of a national abortion ban drove voters to the polls. For the moment, for Democrats, Dobbs is a gift that keeps on giving – thanks to Kavanaugh and co.“I’d like to believe we’re in the middle of a revolution that will only be recognizable in the years to come,” Ford writes.Maybe sooner than that.
      One Way Back: A Memoir is published in the US by Macmillan More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Netanyahu told Senate Republicans Gaza strategy would remain unchanged – as it happened

      by

      The Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, indicated he rejected a request from the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to address his lawmakers today.“When you make these issues partisan, you hurt the cause of Israel,” Schumer told reporters when asked if he turned down Netanyahu. US media outlets report that prime minister wanted to talk to Democratic senators during a closed-door meeting.Last week, Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in the United States, broke with Netanyahu and called on Israel to hold new elections. He criticized the prime minister for the high civilian death toll in Gaza, and said Netanyahu was among a group of politicians and groups who were undermining efforts to implement a two-state solution to the crisis between Israel and Palestine.Texas has experienced a case of judicial whiplash, after the supreme court yesterday allowed its law giving police the power to arrest suspected illegal border crossers to go into effect. But just hours later, a federal appeals court blocked it again, and the matter seems set for further legal wrangling that may well wind up before the US supreme court at some point in the future. Back in Washington DC, the Democratic Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, indicated that he turned down a request from the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to address his lawmakers, warning that support for the country should not become “partisan”. But Republican senators were happy to hear from Netanyahu, who said the prime minister told them he had no plans to change his military strategy in Gaza.Here’s what else happened:
      House Republicans pressed on with the impeachment investigation of Joe Biden, while Democrats attacked their witnesses’ credibility, and one showed up in a Vladimir Putin mask.
      A Georgia judge allowed Donald Trump to appeal his ruling last week that prosecutor Fani Willis could stay on the election subversion case against him, but only if the special counsel Nathan Wade leaves.
      The Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, said he understood where Trump was coming from when he accused Democratic Jews of hating Israel and their religion – comments that drew accusations of antisemitism.
      Biden announced new rules that could dramatically slash emissions from passenger cars and trucks to fight the climate crisis.
      A special election in California to replace the former House speaker Kevin McCarthy appears headed to a runoff between two Republicans, likely to Johnson’s chagrin.
      In an address to Senate Republicans, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said he had no plans to change his military strategy in Gaza, Reuters reports.Netanyahu spoke to Republicans via videolink at their behind-closed-door lunch today, days after Chuck Schumer, the chamber’s Democratic majority leader, broke with him and called for new elections in Israel.“He’s going to do what he said he’s going to do. He’s going to finish it,” the Republican senator Jim Risch said after hearing from Netanyahu.Here’s more, from Reuters:
      Wednesday’s meeting underscored the politicization of Washington’s Israel policy. Netanyahu has long been aligned with Republicans, who accused Schumer of seeking to “overthrow” the Israeli leader.
      “We asked … him for an update and we got it on the war, on the release of the hostages and in the efforts to defeat Hamas. We told him Israel has every right to defend themselves and he said that’s exactly what they continue to do,” Senator John Barrasso said.
      Democratic leaders have been grappling with divisions in their party over the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza five months into a war that began with attacks on Israel by Hamas militants on Oct. 7.
      …
      Risch, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Netanyahu had addressed civilian casualties and the need to get more aid into Gaza. He said Netanyahu was “very supportive” of plans to build a temporary pier and bring in aid by sea.
      “He’s very sensitive to the fact that every civilian casualty is a very unfortunate event,” Risch said.
      Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Netanyahu had made a presentation and then taken questions from senators.
      “I made it clear to him, that it’s not the business of the United States to be giving a democratic ally advice about when to have an election or what kind of military campaign they may be conducting,” McConnell told reporters.
      The aftershocks from Republican insurgents’ historic ouster of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker, and his subsequent resignation from Congress, continue to reverberate, notably in the race to replace him in his central California district.Vince Fong, a Republican California assemblyman, currently leads the official vote count after the Tuesday special election to replace McCarthy. But he does not appear to have won the 50% support necessary to avoid a runoff, meaning Fong will have to stand in May against whoever comes in second place. That is on course to be his fellow Republican Mike Boudreaux, with the Democratic candidate, Marisa Wood, trailing in third place – not much of a surprise, considering McCarthy’s former district is considered California’s most Republican.However that race ultimately turns out, the biggest loser last night may have been the Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, who is trying to pass legislation with a tiny majority. Had Fong won, it would have given the speaker a sorely needed vote, but now he’ll have to wait till May to see McCarthy’s replacement seated.McCarthy’s decision to resign after being ousted from Republican leadership – which came a year after Nancy Pelosi left House Democratic leadership – comes amid a period of turnover in Golden State politics. The longtime Democratic US representatives Anna Eshoo, Tony Cárdenas and Grace Napolitano have also announced plans to step down.Two weeks after California’s primary, the race to replace Eshoo in her Bay Area district remains exceptionally close. Just two votes separate the Democratic candidates Evan Low, a state assemblyman, and Joe Simitian, a Santa Clara county supervisor, with ballot counting ongoing. The winner will advance to the November general election and face the Democrat Sam Liccardo, the former mayor of San Jose.Chuck Schumer’s public criticism of the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and his call for the country to hold elections came after months of deliberations, the Democratic Senate leader revealed to the New York Times this weekend.“I said to myself, ‘This may hurt me politically; this may help me politically.’ I couldn’t look myself in the mirror if I didn’t do it,” Schumer, who represents New York, said in an interview. He added that the point of his speech “was to say you can still love Israel and feel strongly about Israel and totally disagree with Bibi Netanyahu and the policies of Israel”.Schumer noted he spent about two months working on his speech, writing multiple drafts of an address intended to make clear he believed Netanyahu is “the fount of the problems”.The Senate leader has faced considerable criticism for his public break with Netanyahu, most notably from Republicans. Here’s more on that:The rift between the top Senate Democrat, Chuck Schumer, and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, became public suddenly, amid continuing reports of terrible humanitarian conditions in Gaza. Here’s the latest on that, from the Guardian’s Peter Beaumont:The accusation by the UN and other humanitarians that Israel may be committing a war crime by deliberately starving Gaza’s population is likely to significantly increase the prospect of legal culpability for the country, including at the international court of justice.Amid reports that the Israel Defense Forces are hiring dozens of lawyers to defend against anticipated cases and legal challenges, the charge that Israel has triggered a “man-made famine” by deliberately obstructing the entry of aid into Gaza is backed by an increasing body of evidence.Already facing a complaint of genocide from South Africa at the ICJ, the UN’s top court – including an allegation that senior Israeli political officials have incited genocide in public statements – Israel is also the subject of a provisional emergency ruling by the court ordering it to admit life-saving aid to Gaza.The Senate’s Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer, indicated he rejected a request from the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to address his lawmakers today.“When you make these issues partisan, you hurt the cause of Israel,” Schumer told reporters when asked if he turned down Netanyahu. US media outlets report that prime minister wanted to talk to Democratic senators during a closed-door meeting.Last week, Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in the United States, broke with Netanyahu and called on Israel to hold new elections. He criticized the prime minister for the high civilian death toll in Gaza, and said Netanyahu was among a group of politicians and groups who were undermining efforts to implement a two-state solution to the crisis between Israel and Palestine.Pete Aguilar, chair of the House Democratic caucus, said that Donald Trump “doesn’t belong anywhere near the Oval Office” following the ex-president’s comments that there will be a “bloodbath” in the US if he loses the election.Aguilar said:
      He represents a clear and present danger to democracy. His comments over the weekend …should be taken both literally and seriously … Donald Trump would sacrifice our way of life in a heartbeat if he thought that it could bring him political power. He doesn’t belong anywhere near the Oval Office and don’t just take our word for it – the former VP, his former chief of staff, his former defense secretary, and his former secretary of state all agree.
      Here are more details from Punchbowl News on Chuck Schumer’s reported refusal to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to address the Senate Democratic caucus:According to Schumer, having Netanyahu address the caucus would “not be helpful to Israel”, Punchbowl News reports.The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, has declined a request from the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to address the Senate Democratic Caucus, Punchbowl News reports.According to the outlet, Schumer said these conversations should not happen “in a partisan manner”.Netanyahu is scheduled to address Senate Republicans virtually during their lunch meeting today.Last week, Schumer sparked backlash from Republican leaders and Netanyahu’s Likud party after he called for new elections in Israel and criticized Netanyahu’s leadership.Since October, Israel’s war on Gaza has killed more than 31,000 Palestinians while forcibly displacing 2 million survivors across the narrow strip.Texas has experienced a case of judicial whiplash, after the supreme court yesterday allowed its law giving police the power to arrest suspected illegal border crossers to go into effect. But just hours later, a federal appeals court blocked it again, and the matter seems set for further legal wrangling that may well wind up before the supreme court at some point in the future. Back in Washington DC, Republicans pressed on with their impeachment investigation into Joe Biden, despite revelations that a key source for their unproven allegations received information from Russian intelligence. At a hearing of the House oversight committee, Democrats hammered the credibility of the GOP’s witnesses, and one lawmaker made the point by showing up in a Vladimir Putin mask.Here’s what else is happening:
      A Georgia judge allowed Donald Trump to appeal his ruling last week that prosecutor Fani Willis could stay on the election subversion case against him, but only if special counsel Nathan Wade leaves.
      The Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, said he understood where Trump was coming from when he accused Democratic Jews of hating Israel and their religion – comments that drew accusation of antisemitism.
      Joe Biden announced new rules that could dramatically slash emissions from passenger cars and trucks to fight the climate crisis.
      Republicans invited two witnesses to today’s House oversight committee hearing: Tony Bobulinski and Jason Galanis, both former business associates of Hunter Biden.But only Bobulinski could actually show up, since Galanis is currently incarcerated for securities fraud.Bobulinski, meanwhile, has his own checkered past, one that the committee’s top Democrat Jamie Raskin made note of at the hearing:House Republicans have long clamored for Hunter Biden to appear before them.And while the president’s son did consent to a behind-closed-doors interview, NBC News reported that his lawyer last week told Republicans: “Mr Biden declines your invitation to this carnival side show.”So the oversight committee today left an empty seat with a placard reading “Mr Biden”, perhaps hoping he would make another surprise appearance:House Republicans appear to be pressing on with their impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden’s alleged corruption, even as they have yet to turn up evidence that the president benefited from his family members’ overseas business dealings.They’re also dealing with the fallout from revelations that an informant crucial to their case received information from Russian intelligence. But as the House oversight committee gathered for their latest hearing in the investigation, Democratic lawmaker Jared Moskowitz sought to remind them by showing up in a Vladimir Putin mask: More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      RBG’s son fights decision to give Musk and Murdoch mother’s namesake award

      by

      The son of the late US supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called a decision to give Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch an award named for his mother a “desecration” of her memory.Discussing protests made to the Dwight D Opperman Foundation, which gives the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Woman of Leadership award, James Ginsburg told CNN: “I don’t want to speak to what our other plans might be if the foundation doesn’t see the wisdom of desisting and ending this desecration of my mother’s memory. But I will say that we will continue to fight this.”The second woman appointed to the US supreme court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg spent 27 years as a justice, becoming a hero to American liberals. She died aged 87 in September 2020 and was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, the third conservative justice installed by Donald Trump.Ginsburg helped establish the award colloquially known as the RBG, saying it would honour “women who have strived to make the world a better place for generations that follow their own, women who exemplify human qualities of empathy and humility, and who care about the dignity and wellbeing of all who dwell on planet Earth”.Previous recipients have included Barbra Streisand and Queen Elizabeth II.Last week, the Dwight D Opperman Foundation announced a five-strong list it said was chosen from “a slate of dozens of diverse nominees” but which included just one woman.That was Martha Stewart, 82, the lifestyle entrepreneur (and member of the first RBG award committee) who in 2004 was convicted of fraud and jailed for five months.The men were:
      Musk, 52, the billionaire owner of SpaceX, Tesla and X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, through which he has taken increasingly rightwing political stances;

      Murdoch, 93 and the rightwing media baron owner of Fox News;

      Michael Milken, 77, a financier jailed on securities charges, pardoned by Trump and now a philanthropist;

      And Sylvester Stallone, 77, the star of films including the Rocky saga and the violent Rambo franchise.
      The list prompted protests including a widely publicised letter to the foundation from a former Ginsburg clerk. Jane C Ginsburg, the justice’s daughter and a Columbia University law professor, called it “an affront to the memory of our mother”.James Ginsburg, the founder and president of Cedille Records, a classical music label, told CNN he did not have “a clue” how the list of honorees was decided.He said: “The original purpose of the award was … to recognise an extraordinary woman who has exercised a positive and notable influence on society and served as an exemplary role model in both principles and practice.“And whether you want to discuss the wisdom of opening up that to men or not is one thing, but I think it would be hard pressed to apply that description to people like Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch. And that’s why the family is so upset … the whole family and her clerk family …“I’ve been contacted by people I know and people even that I don’t know about this, saying how upset they are. My sister even got a threatening letter and one of the things we want to do here is set the record straight. The family had nothing to do with this. We were not consulted. We are vehemently against this appropriation of our mother’s name and this insult to her legacy.”The Opperman Foundation has said it intends to honour both men and women because Ruth Bader Ginsburg “fought not only for women but for everyone”. The Guardian contacted the foundation for further comment.James Ginsburg said his mother would be “appalled” by honours given in her name to “people who pretty much stand against all the things that she stood for in terms of trying to … make the world a better place for people striving for equality and for a more inclusive world where everybody is treated with respect.“I think one of her law clerks made a great analogy … it’s a little bit like … if somebody gave money to a university to build a physics lab and they built a football stadium instead. It so violates the purpose of what was intended here. And this is not what my mother signed on to when the award was first created …“We can discuss the wisdom of each [nominee], but the two that obviously stand out here are Elon Musk and Rupert Murdoch.”The two men did not immediately comment.James Ginsburg said: “When you think of trying to create a more just society, which of course was mom’s ultimate goal, those are probably about the last names that would come to mind.”
      This article was amended on 18 March 2024 to correct a misspelling of Ginsburg. More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Brett Kavanaugh knows truth of alleged sexual assault, Christine Blasey Ford says in book

      by

      The US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh is not a “consummately honest person” and “must know” what really happened on the night more than 40 years ago when he allegedly sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford, his accuser writes in an eagerly awaited memoir.A research psychologist from northern California, Ford was thrust into the spotlight in September 2018 as Kavanaugh, a Bush aide turned federal judge, became Donald Trump’s second conservative court nominee. Her allegations almost derailed Kavanaugh’s appointment and created headlines around the world.Ford’s memoir, One Way Back, will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.“The fact is, he was there in the room with me that night in 1982,” Ford writes. “And I believe he knows what happened. Even if it’s hazy from the alcohol, I believe he must know.“Once he categorically denied my allegations as well as any bad behavior from his past during a Fox News interview, I felt more certainty than ever that after my experience with him, he had not gone on to become the consummately honest person befitting a supreme court justice.”Kavanaugh’s nomination became mired in controversy after a Washington Post interview in which Ford said Kavanaugh, while drunk, sexually assaulted her at a party in Montgomery county, Maryland, when they were both in high school.“I thought he might inadvertently kill me,” Ford, then 51, told the Post. “He was trying to attack me and remove my clothing.”Kavanaugh vehemently denied the accusation, helping fuel hearing-room rancor not seen since the 1991 confirmation of Clarence Thomas, a rightwinger accused of sexually harassing a co-worker, Anita Hill.Supported by Republicans and Trump, Kavanaugh rode out the storm to join Thomas on the court. Trump would later add another conservative, Amy Coney Barrett, tipping the court 6-3 to the right. That court has since passed down major rightwing rulings, most prominently removing the federal right to abortion.In her book, Ford says she thought Kavanaugh might “step down to avoid putting his family through an investigation or further scrutiny”, adding that she wanted to tell him he should “save us both the trouble”, because “I don’t want this as much as you don’t want this”.She has been asked, she says, what she would have done if Kavanaugh had “reached out and apologised”.She writes: “Who would he be apologising to – me? The country? What would he be apologising for – that night? The harassment [of Ford by Trump supporters] around the testimony?“All I can guess is that if he’d come to me, really leveled with me, and said, ‘I don’t remember this happening, but it might have, and I’m so sorry,’ it might have been a significant, therapeutic moment for survivors in general … I might’ve wobbled a bit. I might have thought, ‘You know what, he was a jackass in high school but now he’s not.’“But when my story came out and he flat-out denied any possibility of every single thing I said, it did alleviate a little of my guilt. For me, the question of whether he had changed was answered. Any misgivings about him being a good person went away.”Ford says she decided to press through the difficulties of coming forward – meeting Democratic senators opposed to Kavanaugh, being grilled by Republicans supporting him, becoming famous herself – because of the importance of the court.She writes: “Honestly, if it hadn’t been the supreme court – if my attacker had been running for a local office, for example – I probably wouldn’t have said anything.Calling this “a sad, scary thing to admit”, Ford adds: “But this was a job at one of our most revered institutions, which we have historically held in the highest esteem. That’s what I learned at school.”Saying she was “thinking and behaving according to principle”, she adds: “I was under the impression (delusion?) that almost everyone else viewed it from the same perspective.“Wasn’t it inarguable that a supreme court justice should be held to the highest standard? A presidency you could win, but to be a supreme court justice, you needed to live your perfection. These nine people make decisions that affect every person in the country. I figured the application process should be as thorough as possible, and perhaps I could be a letter of (non)reference.”Ford also describes occasions on which she discussed the alleged attack as Kavanaugh rose to prominence. As well as conversations in therapy reported by the Post, she cites others triggered by high-profile events.Among such moments, Ford says, were the 1991 Thomas hearings in which Hill was brutally grilled by senators of both parties; a 2016 criminal case in which a Stanford swimmer was convicted of sexual assault but given a light sentence; and the #MeToo movement of 2017, in which women’s stories of sexual assault led to convictions of prominent men.After Kavanaugh was named as a potential supreme court nominee, Ford contacted Anna Eshoo, her Democratic California congresswoman, and the Post. She may have inadvertently leaked her identity, she writes, by contacting a tip line using her own phone. Either way, she was soon at the centre of a political hurricane.“I never, ever wanted [Kavanaugh’s] family to suffer,” Ford writes, adding: “When my allegations came out publicly, the media started reporting that he was getting threats. It troubled me a lot.“Then I remembered that I’d already had to move to a hotel because of the threats to me and my family. Again and again I thought, ‘Why is he putting us all through this? Why can’t he call those people off? Say something – anything – to condemn the harassment happening on both sides?”Kavanaugh, she writes, was at the mercy of rightwing interests pushing for his confirmation. Ultimately, she says, he should have expected “a thorough review of [his] entire history to be part of” becoming a justice.“If you can’t handle that,” Ford writes, “then maybe you’re not qualified for the job.” More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US marshals ask Congress for $38m in security as threats against judges rise

      by

      The United States Marshals Service is asking Congress for $38m to fund two new programs aimed at bolstering judicial security in response to a rise in threats against federal judges and justices on the supreme court.Both programs were tucked into the US justice department’s budget proposal unveiled on Monday and were part of the US Marshals Service’s overall request for $4bn for the 2025 fiscal year that begins 1 October.The budget request proposes using $28.1m to create a new office of protective services within the marshals agency’s judicial security division, which is tasked with protecting more than 2,700 sitting judges and managing courthouse security.The marshals are seeking 53 new positions for the office, which “will develop a strong framework for fulfilling protective responsibilities for the federal judiciary”, including the US supreme court, the justice department said.A Reuters investigation last month documented a sharp rise in threats and intimidation directed at judges who have been criticized by Donald Trump after ruling against the Republican former president’s interests in cases they were hearing.Serious threats overall against federal judges rose to 457 in fiscal year 2023, from 224 in fiscal year 2021, according to the marshals service.The marshals service is also seeking $10m for a new grant program that provides funding to state and local governments to prevent the personal information of federal judges and their family members from being disclosed in government databases or registries.That program was authorized by the Daniel Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act, legislation that was passed in 2022 that sought to allow judges to shield their personal information from being viewed online.The bill was named for US district judge Esther Salas’s son, who was shot and killed at her home in New Jersey by a disgruntled lawyer in July 2020.The marshals service’s request for $38m in new judicial security funding is on top of $805.9m the judiciary itself is seeking for court security and $19.4m sought by the US supreme court.The supreme court’s request included funding to expand the security activities of the supreme court police and to let the court’s police take over the duties currently served by the marshals service of protecting the justices’ homes.The marshals service, when requested, also protects supreme court justices when they travel outside Washington.The high court in 2022 overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide, prompting protests outside the homes of members of the court’s 6-3 conservative majority.An armed California man was charged in 2022 with attempting to assassinate conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh after being arrested near his home. That man, Nicholas John Roske, has pleaded not guilty in the case. More