US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Uphold integrity, avoid impropriety: key rules of supreme court ethics code

      by

      The newly-published code of conduct for the US supreme court justices, issued on Monday in the wake of a series of ethics scandals, drew immediate criticism for its seemingly begrudging tone.“For the most part, these rules and principles are not new,” the nine justices write in the introduction labeled statement of the court, adding: “The court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules.”Critics also noted that no method of enforcement is detailed in the 14-page document, making participation by the nine-member bench effectively voluntary.Summary of the main points, at a glance:
      A justice should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary
      This short clause states that justices “should respect and comply with the law, and act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence” in the court.
      A justice should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities
      A three-pronged requirement covering respect for the law, not allowing “family, social, political, financial, or other relationships” to influence their conduct or judgment; and not being a member of any group that discriminates on the grounds of race, sex, religion or nationality.
      A justice should perform the duties of office fairly, impartially and diligently
      This essentially requires the panel to close their ears to outside voices when deliberating, or during any other aspect of their duties; and to keep their own mouths closed about cases they are working on.The clause also deals with disqualification of justices, stating they must stand down from cases in which their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned”. It gives possible scenarios, including where justices or immediate family members have certain pre-existing friendships or relationships with any parties in a case.A financial relationship alone would not be grounds for disqualification if the justice or family member “divests the interest that provides the ground for disqualification”.
      A justice may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of the judicial office
      The most detailed of all the clauses, this one allows justices to follow a wide range of “law-related pursuits”, plus “civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and government activities” as well as engaging in speaking, writing, lecturing and teaching.There are caveats: the justices “should not”, for example, appear at events for political parties or campaigns; at fundraisers that are not law-related or for non-profit groups; or at any event where a party has “a substantial financial interest” in the outcome of any case before the court.A justice can serve as a trustee or member of a law-related or non-profit group. Receiving financial reimbursement or compensation is fine, but the amount must be limited to the “actual or reasonably estimated costs or travel, food or lodging reasonably incurred”.
      A justice should refrain from political activity
      The final and shortest clause. No holding political office, speaking for a political party or candidate, and definitely no fundraising for, or donating to, one. Any justice seeking political office is expected to resign from the bench. More

    • 213 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court announces ethics code for justices amid public pressure over undisclosed gifts – as it happened

      by

      The highest court in the nation has announced today its justices must abide by an ethics code.The code begins: “A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary.”The news comes on the heels of revelations about undisclosed financial ties involving conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito that many have argued is a conflict of interest for people in their positions.That’s it for this US politics liveblog. Here are the key points from today:
      The US supreme court has issued a new code of ethics following controversies involving conservative justices who failed to disclose financial ties to republican mega-donors.
      Biden is getting ready to meet Xi Jinping on Wednesday in San Francisco – a demonstration of goodwill on the part of China, whose leader hasn’t visited the US in six years.
      2024 Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley reacted to the news of Tim Scott suspending his presidential bid. “Tim Scott is a good man of faith and an inspiration to so many. The Republican primary was made better by his participation in it,” Haley said on Twitter/X. “South Carolina is blessed to continue to have him as our senator. Scott announced conceded on Sunday, just six months after launching his campaign.”
      New House speaker and Louisiana Republican Mike Johnson has until Friday to garner support for his spending plan, or risk a government shutdown and a fate similar to his predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, who was ousted from the role in October.
      Trump, Trump, and more Trump: The former president received swift condemnation from the Biden-Harris campaign for comparing his political enemies on the left to vermin – language criticized as mirroring that of fascist dictators Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. And ongoing is Trump’s civil fraud trial, after which he could be fined $250m.
      Democratic House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries is considering Mike Johnson’s proposal to stave off a shutdown and discussing it with members.Jeffries says he has concerns with the proposal, specifically what he calls “the bifurcation of the continuing resolution in January and February 2024” as well as Republicans’ failure to address national security and domestic funding priorities of Americans. He also said Democrats wouldn’t accept “any extreme right-wing policy provisions in connection with funding the government”.But he doesn’t reject it outright, writing:
      House Democrats will continue to put people over politics, work with our colleagues to keep the government open and push back against right-wing extremism.
      He added:

      We will proceed this week through the lens of making progress for everyday Americans by continuing to put people over politics.
      What’s not clear is who will enforce the code, or how.The code was released just days before the Senate judiciary committee was expected to vote to authorize subpoenas for Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo – two mega-wealthy donors to conservative causes and political figures, and who paid for luxury trips for justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.The committee had advocated for an ethics code in the wake of the controversies, and in recent months, justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh expressed support for one. In May, chief justice John Roberts said there was more the court could do to “adhere to the highest ethical standards”, without providing any specifics.The full 14-page ethics code can be read here:Although judges have long been beholden to certain rules surrounding conduct, this marks the first time the supreme court has published and adopted a formal code of ethics, similar to those of lower federal courts.A statement of the court that precedes the new code says:“For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice.“The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules. To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.”The new supreme court ethics code has arrived in the wake of public pressure due to ProPublica’s revelations about undisclosed gifts received by justices.In April, ProPublica revealed supreme court justice Clarence Thomas had taken undisclosed trips paid for by Dallas billionaire and major Republican donor Harlan Crow.In June, it was revealed another conservative justice Samuel Alito, took a trip to Alaska with a Republican billionaire in 2008, which he also did not disclose.The highest court in the nation has announced today its justices must abide by an ethics code.The code begins: “A Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should maintain and observe high standards of conduct in order to preserve the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary.”The news comes on the heels of revelations about undisclosed financial ties involving conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito that many have argued is a conflict of interest for people in their positions.If found guilty, Donald Trump faces a fine of at least $250m. The former president also might soon lose his business license due to fraud, New York judge Arthur Engoron ruled.Readers can follow along in our standalone liveblog on the trial here.In other Trump-related news, Donald Trump Jr is testifying today as a defense witness in the New York civil fraud trial against him, his father and their company.The Trumps and the Trump Organization are accused of massively inflating the value of their properties in order to secure loans. They have denied any wrongdoing.Upon taking the stand, Trump Jr said: “I’d say it’s nice to be here, but I have a feeling the attorney general would sue me for perjury,” a dig at New York attorney general Letitia James.The Biden-Harris 2024 campaign criticism of Donald Trump’s remarks at the weekend that the campaign, along with others, compared directly to fascistic dictatorial speech, included a list of articles in various US publications.They include prominent voices slamming Trump and the list is below. Meanwhile, the statement from the Biden-Harris campaign, via spokesperson Ammar Moussa, concludes with this remark: “Donald Trump thinks he can win by dividing our country. He’s wrong, and he’ll find out just how wrong next November.”Then it adds: read what they’re saying about Trump’s statement.
      Washington Post: “Trump calls political enemies ‘vermin,’ echoing dictators Hitler, Mussolini”Forbes: “Trump Compares Political Foes To ‘Vermin’ On Veterans Day—Echoing Nazi Propaganda”The New Republic: “It’s Official: With “Vermin,” Trump Is Now Using Straight-up Nazi Talk”HuffPost: “Fascism Expert Offers Truly Chilling Take On Donald Trump’s ‘Vermin’ Rant”
      The Post piece includes this:
      Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian at New York University, said in an email to The Washington Post that “calling people ‘vermin’ was used effectively by Hitler and Mussolini to dehumanize people and encourage their followers to engage in violence.”
      One year after their last in-person talks, Xi Jinping and Joe Biden will come face-to-face once again on Wednesday in San Francisco.The encounter will dominate events at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit as the Chinese and US presidents seek to stabilise relations in an increasingly fraught geopolitical climate.The meeting, which could last several hours, is the culmination of months of lower level dialogues which took place over the summer, with Washington sending more delegates to China than Beijing did to the US.The fact of China’s leader visiting the US for the first time in six years demonstrates some goodwill from the Chinese side.A speech from Xi to the US-China business community would underline his keenness to attract foreign businesses back to China, many of whom have been spooked by the three years of zero-Covid and the recent raids foreign consulting firms, as well as an increasing number of US restrictions on doing business with China, especially in hi-tech sectors.Sweeping restrictions on the export of advanced technology to China will come into effect on 16 November, the day after Xi’s meeting with Biden. The new rules are a tightening of controls introduced last year, aimed at cutting off China’s access to the most sophisticated semiconductors, which are required to develop advanced artificial intelligence. Read more here.The US political news landscape is tense, with a government shutdown looming, Joe Biden getting ready to meet Xi Jinping and Donald Trump being slammed for parroting fascist dictators, even as he dominates the opinion polls a year out from the presidential election.Stay tuned for more news. The day so far:
      The Biden-Harris 2024 election campaign has issued a strong statement condemning remarks Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump made in a speech on Saturday, Veterans Day, in which he compared his political enemies on the left to vermin.
      GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley praised fellow South Carolinian Tim Scott after he suspended his White House bid.
      A fourth government shutdown in a decade would have far-reaching consequences for the nation in numerous different fields, including national security.
      New House speaker and Louisiana Republican Mike Johnson is up against the clock to see if he can win support for his suggested spending plan, before the looming government shutdown this Friday.
      The Democrat Abigail Spanberger will quit Congress next year to run for governor of Virginia.Announcing her move a week after voters delivered a rebuke to the current Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin, she cited rightwing threats to reproductive rights and attempts to clamp down on public schooling.“Today, we find ourselves at a crossroads,” Spanberger, 44, said in a video on Monday. “Our country and our commonwealth are facing fundamental threats to our rights, our freedoms and to our democracy.”Last week, voters gave Democrats control of both houses of the Virginia legislature, seemingly ending talk of a late entry into the Republican presidential primary by Youngkin, a governor deemed relatively centrist who has nonetheless chosen to focus on culture war issues in office.Spanberger is seen as a centrist. A former CIA officer and gun control group organiser, she was elected to the US House in 2018 from a state which has trended Democratic but remains keenly fought. In 2022, she won a redrawn seat by her widest margin to date. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court announces ethics code amid pressure over gift scandals

      by

      The US supreme court has finally responded to mounting pressure over a spate of ethics scandals engulfing some of its senior rightwing justices by publishing its first ever code that sets out the “rules and principles that guide the conduct of members of the court”.The 14-page document follows months of increasingly sharp criticism of the justices and their failure to apply to themselves basic ethical rules that bind all other judges in the US. Even as they released the code, however, the justices maintained their defensive posture, insisting in a brief statement that the furore of recent months had been a “misunderstanding”.The statement said that the absence of a code had led in recent years to the “misunderstanding that the justices of this court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules”.The newly published code is signed by all nine justices, and lays out the basic guardrails within which they are expected to behave. The first page states baldly that “a justice should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities”.In a section labelled “Outside Influence”, the code says that the nine members of the court should not “knowingly convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the justice”.Although the new code is designed to quell the growing disquiet over the court’s ethical standards, the instant reaction to the guidelines was not effusive. Several experts on judicial ethics pointed out that it lacks any mechanism for enforcement, leaving the justices effectively to police themselves.Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a non-partisan group which advocates for reform, said the guidelines were largely “a copy-and-paste job” from the lower courts’ code. In the absence of any enforcement system, “how can the public trust they’re going to do anything more than simply cover for one another, ethics be damned?”The president of the non-partisan watchdog group Accountable.US, Caroline Ciccone, said that without a clear enforcement mechanism, “this ‘code of conduct’ is just a PR stunt to appease the American public as it demands better from its supreme court.”The cloud of ethical trouble that has consumed the court descended in April when ProPublica published a series of bombshell reports exposing the lavish international travel and vacations Clarence Thomas enjoyed through the largesse of the Republican megadonor Harlan Crow. Later reports revealed that Crow paid for tuition for Thomas’s great-nephew.A fellow conservative justice, Samuel Alito, has also found himself embroiled in ethics disputes after ProPublica revealed he had been treated to an undisclosed fishing holiday in Alaska by the billionaire Paul Singer.Amid a billowing public debate about the dubious ethical standards of the court that is responsible for upholding the country’s judicial authority, there was resistance from some justices to address the crisis. Alito threw fuel on the fire by telling the Wall Street Journal that Congress had no power to regulate the supreme court – a view that has been roundly dismissed by several constitutional law scholars.The chief justice, John Roberts, who is more attuned to public opinion, appears to have been working behind the scenes to find a compromise that all nine justices could sign up to. In May, he told a legal event in Washington: “I want to assure people that I’m committed to making certain that we as a court adhere to the highest standards of conduct.”The code includes a section setting out when justices should recuse themselves from cases. It specifically states that the justices must disqualify themselves when their spouse has “an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding”.In January 2022, the supreme court rejected by a vote of eight to one a request by Donald Trump to block White House records being handed to the House investigation into the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol. The only dissent came from Thomas.Thomas’s wife Ginni Thomas had been actively involved in efforts to undermine Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election. It later transpired that texts between her and Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows were among the batch of documents that were the subject of the supreme court ruling.Another provision in the code says “a justice should not speak at an event sponsored by or associated with a political party or a campaign for political office”. It adds that a justice should not “knowingly be a speaker, a guest of honor, or featured on the program” of a “fundraising event”.In September ProPublica revealed that Thomas had been the draw at least two donor events bankrolling the rightwing network of the energy tycoons the Koch brothers. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats plan to subpoena Leonard Leo over perks to supreme court justices

      by

      Senate Democrats plan to subpoena Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow and conservative activist Leonard Leo to quiz them about their roles in organizing and paying for lavish perks for justices on the hard-right wing of the US supreme court.The announcement by Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee came on Monday amid a storm of controversy that has blown up in recent months about conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito not only accepting but also not disclosing free travel and other luxury favors provided or facilitated by influential public figures.The supreme court is now being pressed to adopt an ethics code – a move that has been publicly endorsed by three of the nine justices amid the rows about ethical controversies, including the risks of outside influence corrupting the court.The committee could act as soon as next week to authorize Illinois senator Dick Durbin, the panel’s chairman, to issue subpoenas to Crow, Leo and another wealthy donor, Robin Arkley II.Crow has been identified as a benefactor of associate justice Clarence Thomas for more than two decades, paying for nearly annual vacations, purchasing from Thomas and others the Georgia home in which the justice’s mother still lives, and helping pay for the private schooling for a relative.Leo, an executive of the Federalist Society, the powerful Washington-based conservative and libertarian advocacy group, worked with former US president Donald Trump to move the court and the rest of the federal judiciary to the right by nominating ultra-conservative judges.And Arkley helped arrange and pay for a private jet trip to Alaska for Justice Alito in 2008.Arkley and Leo have refused to cooperate with the committee’s investigation of the justices’ largely undisclosed private travel, the committee said.Crow “offered to produce certain limited information that fell well short of what the Committee needs and to which it is entitled”, Durbin and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, said in a joint statement.In a statement after Durbin’s announcement, Crow’s office called the subpoena politically motivated and said Crow had offered information to the committee.“It’s clear this is nothing more than a stunt aimed at undermining a sitting supreme court justice for ideological and political purposes,” the statement said.Leo voiced a similar objection. “I will not bow to the vile and disgusting liberal McCarthyism that seeks to destroy the supreme court simply because it follows the constitution rather than their political agenda,” Leo said in a statement.In July, the Senate judiciary panel approved legislation that would force the justices to abide by stronger ethics standards. The bill would set ethics rules for the court and a process to enforce them, including new standards for transparency around recusals, gifts and potential conflicts of interest.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe bill has little chance of passage in the closely divided Senate. Republicans have united against it, saying it could “destroy” the court. And Republicans control the House of Representatives, further providing a block on Democratic led legislation.Apart from the judiciary committee, Democrats on the Senate finance committee issued the results of their separate probe of the $267,000 loan that enabled Thomas to buy a luxury, 40-ft motorcoach in 1999. The committee found that the loan, made by longtime friend Anthony Welters, appears to have been largely if not totally forgiven after Thomas made payments of interest, only, over nine years.Durbin and Whitehouse put out a statement which said: “The Supreme Court is in an ethical crisis of its own making. Thanks to investigative reporting, we now know that for decades, some justices have been joining billionaires with business before the Court on their private planes and yachts or receiving gifts … the justices have enabled their wealthy benefactors and other individuals … to gain private access to the justices while preventing public scrutiny of this conduct.”“Due to Crow, Leo, and Arkley’s intransigence, the committee is now forced to seek compulsory process to obtain the information they hold … Durbin will be asking the committee to grant him authorization to issue subpoenas to these individuals. The chief justice could fix this problem today and adopt a binding code of conduct. As long as he refuses to act, the judiciary committee will.”
      The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court allows delay in redrawing Louisiana map that dilutes Black voters’ power

      by

      The US supreme court said on Thursday it would not immediately lift a lower court’s order blocking a judge from holding a hearing to consider a new congressional map for Louisiana that increases the power of Black voters. The decision could mean that Black voters in Louisiana will have to vote under a map that has been found to illegally weaken their votes for a second time.The decision, which had no noted dissents, is the latest step in an increasingly complex legal battle over Louisiana’s congressional maps. A federal judge last year ordered the state to redraw its six districts to add a second district where Black voters could elect a candidate of their choice. Black voters currently represent about a third of Louisiana’s population but have a majority in just one district.The US supreme court put that decision on hold while it considered a similar case from Alabama. After the court upheld a ruling requiring Alabama to redraw its maps in June, it allowed the Louisiana case to move forward.In a highly unusual move, a split three-judge panel from the US court of appeals for the fifth circuit issued an order in late September blocking a judge from holding a hearing on a remedial map. The two highly conservative judges in the majority, Edith Jones and James Ho, said the lower judge had not given Louisiana Republicans enough of a chance to defend themselves or prepare a legally compliant map.The challengers in the case immediately appealed to the US supreme court, warning that putting off the hearing could mean that Louisiana might not get a new congressional map until after the 2024 election. Such a ruling would mean that Black voters in the state would have to be subject to two federal elections under maps that illegally weakened their votes.“The writ issued by the panel risks injecting chaos into the 2024 election cycle by leaving in place a preliminary injunction barring use of the map the legislature adopted in 2022, while casting doubt on whether or when a lawful remedial map can be promptly developed and implemented,” lawyers for the challengers wrote.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, part of the liberal wing on the US supreme court, wrote a concurring opinion saying that the court’s decision not to get involved should not be seen as condoning the decision from the fifth circuit panel “in these or similar circumstances”.She also noted that she understood the panel’s ruling to halt proceedings until Louisiana had had an opportunity to draw its own maps. The state, she noted, had conceded in a court filing that it would not draw maps while the case was pending, clearing the lower court to “presumably resume the remedial process” while the full fifth circuit considered an appeal of the case.Michael Li, a redistricting expert at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that Louisiana won’t hold its congressional primaries until November 2024, so there should still be plenty of time to hold a full trial on the maps and get new ones in place before then. “The real question is whether any appeals after that trial mean that the redrawing gets put on hold pending appeals,” he wrote in an email.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionStephen Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas, said the supreme court’s ruling made it “somewhat less likely” there would be a new map before 2024, but added: “It’s still a real possibility that there’ll be a new map in time.”In addition to Alabama and Louisiana, observers are closely watching Georgia and Florida, where lawsuits seek to give Black voters a chance to elect their preferred candidate. Because voting in the US south is often racially polarized, any districts designed to give Black voters an opportunity to elect their preferred candidate is likely to benefit Democrats. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court is facing a crisis of legitimacy | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      Donald Trump’s rightwing appointees to the US supreme court have insisted that they’re neither “politicians in robes” nor “partisan hacks”, but many Americans strongly disagree about that, and that’s a major factor behind the court’s extraordinary crisis of legitimacy. With the court lurching to the right in recent years, three in four Americans say it has become “too politicized”, according to a recent poll, while just 49% say they have “trust and confidence” in the court, a sharp decline from 80% when Bill Clinton was president.As the supreme court’s new term begins this week, it should be no surprise that many Americans are questioning the court’s legitimacy considering all of the following. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have taken lavish favors from rightwing billionaires with business before the court and then failed to disclose those favors. The court’s conservative majority has often served as a partisan battering ram to advance the Republican party’s electoral fortunes. Mitch McConnell brazenly stole a supreme court seat from Merrick Garland to preserve the court’s rightwing majority. Not stopping there, McConnell and the Republican-led Senate raced to ram through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation even after voting had started for the 2020 election.Many ethics experts say Thomas and Alito – supposed guardians of the law – violated ethics laws by failing to disclose the luxurious favors they took from billionaires. Adding to the overall stench, the court still hasn’t adopted an ethics code and acts as if the extravagant favors Thomas and Alito received are in no way a problem. Dismayed by the court’s ethical lapses, 40 watchdog groups have called on Chief Justice Roberts to require Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves in cases with links to their billionaire donor friends.Among many Americans, there’s a growing sense that the Roberts court, with its 6-3 hard-right supermajority, is irrevocably broken. Prominent critics say the conservative justices too often act like partisan activists eager to impose their personal preferences, whether by banning affirmative action at universities, overturning gun regulations or torpedoing President Joe Biden’s plan to forgive student loans.Concerns about the court’s legitimacy multiplied after it issued the blockbuster Dobbs decision overturning Roe v Wade and women’s right to choose. With nearly two-thirds of voters believing that Roe was correctly decided, many Americans complained that the court’s conservatives, in toppling Roe, were imposing their personal religious views on society.On one hand, the justices can assert they have legitimacy – they were duly nominated by a president and confirmed by the Senate. But on the other hand, using other democratic measures, the court seems squarely illegitimate. One might say the conservative supermajority is the product of counter-majoritarianism cubed. First, four of the six right-wing justices were nominated by presidents elected with a minority of the popular vote, and second, they were confirmed by Senators who represented a minority of the nation’s population. Third, these hard-right justices are often deeply out of synch with a majority of the public. They’re far more opposed to abortion rights, business regulations, labor unions and government measures that advance economic and social justice.Back in 1982 when I graduated from law school, many people thought the Rehnquist court was too conservative, but no one questioned its legitimacy. But then came the Bush v Gore ruling in which the conservative majority exerted its muscle in an extraordinary partisan fashion to deliver victory in the 2000 election to George W Bush – and thereby assure continued conservative control of the court.At his confirmation hearing, John Roberts famously said he would merely call balls and strikes as chief justice. But that statement has proven to be flatly untrue, an unfortunate curveball. As chief justice, Roberts has repeatedly gone far beyond calling balls and strikes, often in rulings that increased the Republican’s chances of winning elections. In Citizens United, Roberts engineered an atom bomb of a decision that blew up our campaign finance system and overturned century-old rules that sought to prevent corporations and the mega-rich from having undue sway over our politics and government. In Citizens United, the Roberts court did grievous damage to our democracy, helping transform our nation into a plutocracy where billionaires’ money dwarfs the voices of average Americans.Roberts also led the way in overturning a pivotal part of the Voting Rights Act that required Alabama, South Carolina and other states with a dismal history of racial discrimination to obtain pre-clearance from the federal government before they changed voting rules. Showing how out of touch he was with political realities, Roberts wrote a majority decision that essentially said that racial discrimination on voting matters was a thing of the past and that pre-clearance unduly interfered in those states’ internal affairs, despite their disturbing legacy of racism. That decision was one of supreme judicial arrogance, overturning a law that the Senate passed 98 to 0 and the House passed 390 to 33 to extend the Voting Rights Act for 25 years.Roberts handed the Republicans another huge victory when he led the court in turning a blind eye to egregious gerrymandering. In doing so, Roberts gave a green light to brazen gerrymanders and minority rule, like that in Wisconsin where in a recent election, the Republican party won nearly two-thirds of state assembly seats even though its candidates received just 46% of the vote. The supreme court is supposed to safeguard America’s democracy for the ages, and we should all question the legitimacy of a court that in decision after decision has eroded our democracy in a way that favors one political party. (I should note that Roberts, embarrassed by the court’s headlong lurch to the right, recently sought to shore up the court’s flagging legitimacy by mustering a 5-4 majority to overturn an Alabama voting map that diluted Blacks’ voting power.)Clarence Thomas’s corrupt behavior has raised concerns about the court’s legitimacy to new heights. As ProPublica reported, not only did rightwing billionaire Harlan Crow provide Thomas with a free nine-day yacht vacation in Indonesia, but Crow has ferried him around on private jets, purchased properties belonging to Thomas and his relatives and paid private school tuition for a grandnephew Thomas was raising. Separately, Thomas was flown to California to be the star attraction at a far-right Koch network fundraising weekend. Flouting ethics laws, Thomas disclosed none of this.Thomas seems to see a judge’s lifetime tenure as a license to skirt ethics and disclosure laws as well as a lifetime pass to take lavish favors from whomever he wants, even people with cases before the supreme court. As for Alito, he didn’t disclose that billionaire Paul Singer, who later had cases before the supreme court, paid for his luxury fishing trip to Alaska.For decades, the nation’s law schools have taught aspiring lawyers about the importance of judicial restraint and humility, of not overreaching. At a time when so many Americans are questioning the court’s legitimacy, the court should try all the harder to act with restrain and humility – and caution. Instead, the conservative supermajority, enamored with its power, seems intent on acting boldly and overreaching to stamp its rightwing vision on our constitutional order. These unelected justices seem happy to hobble our democratically elected president, in ways large and small, and in doing so, to dangerously undermine our democracy.
      Steven Greenhouse is an American labor and workplace journalist and writer More

    • 163 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Blame the US supreme court for the Bob Menendez scandal | David Sirota

      by

      Gold bars, guns, cash stuffed into a coat and favors for a foreign government – the new indictment of Bob Menendez, the Democratic US senator from New Jersey, reads like the plot of a cheap pulp novel satirizing political graft. But the allegations against the longtime lawmaker are all too real – and the purported scheme all too predictable – in a country whose judiciary has been effectively telling politicians that corruption is perfectly legal.Evoking memories of Abscam and the Keating Five scandals, the details of the Menendez indictment are certainly anomalous for their cartoonish color. Indeed, this affair goes way beyond the donation-for-legislation culture that has been normalized in Washington. Federal prosecutors allege an elaborate plot in which Menendez and his wife accepted “hundreds of thousands of dollars of bribes in exchange for using Menendez’s power and influence as a senator to seek to protect and enrich” a trio of businessmen “and to benefit the Arab Republic of Egypt”.In particular, Menendez and his wife stand accused of accepting “cash, gold, payments toward a home mortgage, compensation for a low-or-no-show job, a luxury vehicle, and other things of value”. The indictment alleges that in exchange, Menendez passed non-public US government information to Egyptian officials; used his position as chair of the Senate foreign relations committee to facilitate and “sign off on” weapons sales to that country; plotted to disrupt a criminal investigation into one of the businessmen; and persuaded the Biden administration to install a new prosecutor whom he believed he could influence on behalf of another businessman.Menendez has denied the charges against him, depicting himself as a victim of a “smear campaign” by those who “simply cannot accept that a first-generation Latino American from humble beginnings could rise to be a US senator and serve with honor and distinction”.But if the alleged facts in the indictment prove true, the big question is: why would any politician think he could get away with something so brazen?Perhaps it’s because Menendez knows that to secure a conviction, prosecutors will have to prove that it was illegal for him to accept the gifts in exchange for a “performance of an official act”. And like every US politician, Menendez almost certainly knows that while that may seem straightforward, the corruption-plagued supreme court has deliberately made it anything but.Less than a decade ago, justices reviewed a case that echoed today’s Menedez scandal. This one involved Bob McDonnell, a former Virginia governor and Republican, whom a federal jury found guilty on 11 counts of conspiracy for accepting lavish gifts from a businessman in exchange for gubernatorial favors. However, supreme court justices unanimously overturned McDonnell’s conviction in 2016 on the grounds that those favors were permissible.“Our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns,” wrote chief justice John Roberts at the time. “It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute … Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an ‘official act’.”The landmark decision tightened the legal definition of public corruption, increasing the difficulty for prosecutors to establish a bribery case against a political official.Menendez has already once tried to use that precedent to halt a previous corruption indictment in a similarly grotesque case that he successfully fought to a mistrial. Recent developments may make it even easier for the New Jersey lawmaker to once again avoid jail.In 2020, disgraced New York politicians convinced courts to use the McDonnell precedent to overturn parts of their high-profile corruption convictions.Two years later, the supreme court struck again, overturning two additional Albany corruption convictions. In one of the latter cases, the court declared that bribery charges cannot apply to government officials who – during brief hiatuses from their jobs – accept payments to elicit favors from their public-sector cronies just before they return to government employment.Then came all the news of supreme court justices and their family members secretly accepting luxury gifts from billionaires and payments from law firms and conservative groups with business before the court. Taken together, those revelations suggested a self-protection motive in the court’s ongoing crusade to complicate, reduce and ultimately halt the prosecution of corruption in every level of government.In this era of Super Pacs buying elections, lawmakers legislating for their biggest donors and judges ruling for their benefactors, the Menendez case could be a moment for the government to finally re-establish some basic, minimum commitment to the “law and order” notions that politicians love to tout. No doubt, that’s what federal prosecutors are trying to do here.The problem is that supreme court justices have for years been legalizing – and personally engaging in – similar kinds of corruption. At the same time, top Democrats are constantly assuring justices that no matter how repugnant their behavior, there will be no serious challenge to their power.Considering that, the high court may feel emboldened to use the Menendez case not to counter Americans’ perception that the government is hopelessly rotted through with corruption, but to instead make the rot even worse.Justices could use the case to further whittle down the definitions of terms such as “bribery” and “official act” to almost nothing – thereby making corruption not a crime, but the legal, court-approved ethos of American governance.
      David Sirota is a Guardian US columnist and an award-winning investigative journalist. He is an editor at large at Jacobin, and the founder of The Lever. He served as Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign speechwriter More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘You want to think America is better’: can the supreme court be saved?

      by

      When Dawn Porter studied law at Georgetown University in Washington, she would pass the US supreme court every day. “You walk by the marble columns, the frontage which has inspirational words, and you believe that,” she recalls. “You think because of this court Black people integrated schools, because of this court women have the right to choose, because of this court, because of this court, because of this court.”Its profound role in American life is chronicled in Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court, Porter’s four-part documentary series that traces the people, decisions and confirmation battles that have helped the court’s relationship with politics turn from a respectful dance into a toxic marriage.Porter, 57, an Emmy award winner who maintains her bar licence, remembers first year common law classes when she studied the court’s landmark decisions. “Like most lawyers I have a great admiration for not only what the court can do but its role in shaping American opinion as well as American society,” she says via Zoom from New York, a poster for her film John Lewis: Good Trouble behind her.“If there’s a criticism of the court in this series, it comes from a place of longing, a place of saying we can’t afford for this court to lose the respect of the American people. There’s going to be decisions over time that people disagree with. That’s not unusual. What’s unusual is how cases are getting to the court, how they’re ignoring precedent and the procedures by which the decisions are getting made. That’s where I would love people to focus.”Deadlocked offers a visual montage of the court winding back in time: women and people of colour gradually disappear in favour of an all-white, all-male bench. They include Chief Justice Earl Warren, who heralded an era of progressive legal decisions such as Brown v Board of Education, a unanimous 1954 ruling that desegregated public schools.Porter says of the paradox: “One of the things we were thinking is, isn’t it ironic that this all-male, all-white court is responsible for Brown v Board and for Roe v Wade [which enshrined the right to abortion] and you have the right to an attorney, which is Gideon v Wainwright, and you have the right to have your rights read to you. Yet when we have the most diverse court we’ve ever had, we’re seeing a rollback of some of these civil rights.”In 1967, President Lyndon Johnson nominated the civil rights lawyer Thurgood Marshall to be the first Black man to serve on the court. A group of southern senators, almost all Democrats, sought to exploit riots in the major cities and fears about crime to try to derail his nomination. Marshall endured five days of questioning spanning three weeks and was finally confirmed by the Senate in a 69-11 vote.There have only been two African American justices since: conservative Clarence Thomas and liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson. The first woman to sit on the court was Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate conservative appointed by the Republican president Ronald Reagan.“It takes a century of supreme court jurisprudence before we get a woman on the court. There’s an irony there that we have the current composition of the court and yet we have probably one of the most least hospitable courts to individual rights.”The court’s relationship with public opinion has been complex, leading at some times, following at others. In 2015, it ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry. The 5-4 decision removed same-sex marriage bans in 14 states – an acknowledgment of shifting attitudes and the rise of the LGBTQ+ rights movement.Porter observes: “The court doesn’t have an army. It doesn’t even have PR or a media representative. The supreme court can’t change public opinion but what the court can do is either set an aspirational goal or it can reflect where the country is. For the gay marriage decision, that’s where the country was. The country was supportive of same-sex marriage and the court ratifies that public opinion and makes it law.”Opinion polls show that a majority of Americans have also consistently supported reproductive rights. In Roe v Wade in 1973, the court voted 7-2 that the constitution protects individual privacy, including the right to abortion. Porter observes: “It’s not that controversial a decision by that time. More than half the states had reproductive rights access so it was only going to affect some of the states.”At the time, Christian evangelicals were not opposed to abortion rights. “Evangelicals historically were pro-choice. This is where politics comes in and is on this collision course with the judiciary. Evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell realised, oh, wait, abortion is a wedge issue and there are all these Catholic voters. So they come together.“What the evangelicals want is tax exemption for religious schools. The Catholics don’t want abortion and together they’re a powerful voting bloc. They not only say we’re going to try and get the supreme court to change but we’re going to elect a president who is going to help us.”These religious groups duly turned against the Democratic president Jimmy Carter, an evangelical Sunday school teacher, in favour of the divorced former Hollywood actor Reagan. Porter continues: “What you see is kind of politics at work. How can we get power? How can we get what we want? How can we form alliances?“That alliance is very powerful because Reagan ends up having so many appointments to the court and you see the rightward shift of the court. These kinds of monumental changes don’t happen quickly but building blocks are constructed in these earlier years, like in the 80s, and they’ve continued to this day.”The court’s role as a political actor was never more stark than in 2000, when its ruling in Bush v Gore terminated the recount process in Florida in the presidential election, effectively handing the White House to George W Bush. Porter notes: “It’s 5-4 to step in and stop the voting to determine who would be the next president of the United States. Sandra Day O’Connor later said she regretted voting with the majority.“Also, interestingly, Justices John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett are all working with the Republicans on the side of soon-to-be President Bush. Is that illegal? No. Is it impermissible? No. Is it unethical? No. Is it interesting? Yes!” Porter says with a laugh.But the ever-growing politicisation of the court became turbocharged – perhaps irreversibly – by the death of the conservative justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. Mitch McConnell, then Republican majority leader in the Senate, committed a professional foul by refusing to act on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace him, insisting that the seat remain vacant in an election year.Step forward Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president who released a list of 11 potential supreme court nominees based on advice from conservative groups such as the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. It was an unprecedented political masterstroke that comforted religious conservatives troubled by his unholy antics and past support for abortion rights.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMcConnell is seen in Deadlocked asserting that “the single biggest issue that brought nine out of 10 Republican voters home to Donald Trump … was the supreme court”. This clip is from an address he made in 2019 to the Federalist Society, which has played a critical role in tilting the court to the right.The group was founded in 1982 under the mentorship of Justice Antonin Scalia to challenge what conservatives perceived as liberal dominance of courts and law schools. Among its most prominent members was Leonard Leo, who oversaw the rise in its influence at the expense of the more liberal American Bar Association.Porter says: “Leonard Leo is one of the most fascinating and yet not widely known political actors in our contemporary history. The Federalist Society realises: we can have influence in grooming judges and who’s getting appointed to the lower courts. Leonard Leo takes that on steroids and eventually becomes the person who former president Trump looks to create his list of potential supreme court nominees.“In recent years Leo has secured a multibillion-dollar war chest in order to continue to groom and populate the lower courts with very conservative ideologues. Amy Coney Barrett is a product of that. Kavanaugh is a product of that. All the greatest hits are with Federalist Society influence.”Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic senator, has called it “the scheme”: a decades-long plot by rightwing donor interests to capture the supreme court and use it to accomplish goals that they cannot achieve through elected officials. The Federalist Society is a receptacle for “dark money” – millions of dollars in anonymous hidden spending.Porter adds: “The problem with private entities like the Federalist Society having so much influence and power is that there’s no insight into the source of their funds. We certainly do know that it’s not a coincidence that some of the interests of some of the most conservative folks seem to be being served by these appointments.”Last year the rightwing forces achieved their greatest victory with a decision that once seemed unthinkable: the overturning of Roe v Wade after nearly half a century. Most Republican-led states moved to restrict abortion with 14 banning the procedure in most cases at any point in pregnancy. About 25 million women of childbearing age now live in states where the law makes abortions harder to get than they were before the ruling.Porter had wanted to believe the court she admired as a student was a bulwark in defence of individual liberties. “Every pundit, every organisation, said Roe is going to be overturned and yet it was still hard to believe that 50 years later, when so many people rely on that decision, that it actually could be overturned.“I will say it really did personally impact my feeling about the court. Reading the decision, there’s ignoring of history. It’s not a well-written opinion, it’s not coherent, and that’s really hard. We all need to believe in things and we all need to believe that these are the smartest people and that they’re able to put aside their personal beliefs and that didn’t seem to be the case.“It was more than disappointing. It’s somewhat comforting that we have such a strong reaction to it but I see the cases of the women who have been so harmed by this decision. There are people have been forced to carry pregnancies to term that were not viable, people who just stay pregnant who didn’t want to be pregnant. You want to think America is better than that.”As the final episode of Deadlocked acknowledges, the court faces a crisis of legitimacy. A series of extremist rulings out of whack with public opinion have come at the same time as ethics scandals involving the rightwing justices Thomas and Samuel Alito. The share of Americans with a favourable opinion of the court has declined to its lowest point in public opinion surveys since 1987: 44% favourable versus 54% unfavourable, according to the Pew Research Center.Porter adds: “Every single person we spoke to for this series regardless of their political background – and we have Scalia’s former clerk, who wrote the decision broadening access to guns; we have Ted Olson, who argued Bush v Gore for President Bush; we have Don Ayer, who was a Reagan justice department official – is concerned about the reputation of the court and what the future holds if the court continues to chart its own path and not realise the delicate balance of our tripartite system of government.“What if the court sides with a Trump who refuses to accept the results of the election next year? That’s what we’re talking about and a lot of the people who did the insurrection are still out there; we didn’t arrest them all. We’re in uncharted waters. It’s not a game and I don’t think anyone wants to actually put this to the test of: will our democracy survive?”
      Deadlocked: How America Shaped the Supreme Court premieres on Showtime on 22 September with a UK date to be announced More