US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel asks US supreme court to rule on Trump’s claim of immunity

      by

      Special counsel prosecutors on Monday asked the US supreme court to make an expedited decision on whether Donald Trump can be criminally prosecuted on federal charges over his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.The move amounts to an attempt by prosecutors to bypass Trump’s recent appeal to the DC circuit after the federal judge overseeing his case rejected the notion that he had immunity for acts he committed during his presidency.The petition to the supreme court shows prosecutors were concerned that going through the appeals process – submitting briefs, scheduling oral arguments and waiting for a decision while the case remained frozen – could delay the March 2024 trial date.Trump has made no secret of the fact that delaying the trial as long as he can remains his overarching legal strategy. If it was postponed until after next year’s presidential election and Trump won, he could direct his attorney general to drop the charges.“This case presents a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy: whether a former president is absolutely immune from federal prosecution for crimes committed while in office or constitutionally protected from federal prosecution when he has been impeached but not convicted,” the petition said.The request that the supreme court grant what is known as certiorari before the appeals court issues judgment is unusual. It is typically used in cases of national crises, like when Richard Nixon refused to hand over White House tapes to a special prosecutor.By citing US v Nixon and asking for expedited treatment in their petition, prosecutors essentially contended to the supreme court that they consider the Trump case of equal magnitude and constitutional consequence.“The United States recognizes that this is an extraordinary request,” the filing said. “This is an extraordinary case.”The supreme court has previously ruled that presidents have expansive immunity in civil lawsuits but has never explicitly ruled whether presidents can face criminal charges for crimes they are alleged to have committed while in office.Whether the court will take up the case remains uncertain, but it has increasingly granted certiorari before an appeals court judgement in recent years, and especially for presidential power cases, according to research by supreme court experts Steve Vladeck and David Merlinsky.The prosecutors on the filing included the special counsel Jack Smith himself, two of his deputies JP Cooley and James Pearce, as well as veteran supreme court litigator Michael Dreeben, who was also formerly a top appellate litigator for special counsel Robert Mueller in the Russia investigation.Having the case go to trial in Washington after the election would also mean voters would not know the full extent of the evidence of Trump’s attempts to reverse his 2020 defeat before deciding whether to give him a second term in the White House.“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” the petition said. “Only this court can definitively resolve them.”Last week, the presiding US district judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s claims that he enjoyed absolute immunity through a sweeping interpretation of executive power, arguing the former president could not be held accountable for actions undertaken in office.“Defendant’s four-year service as commander in chief did not bestow on him the divine right of kings to evade criminal accountability that governs his fellow citizens,” Chutkan wrote in her 48-page opinion.Trump swiftly challenged the denial of his motion to dismiss to the US court of appeals for the DC circuit. Notably, the ex-president also asked Chutkan to freeze all aspects of the 2020 election subversion case until the question was resolved.The motions to dismiss submitted by Trump’s lawyers contended that all of his attempts to reverse his 2020 election defeat in the indictment were in his capacity as president and therefore protected. Those actions ranged from pressuring his vice-president, Mike Pence, to stop the congressional certification to organizing fake slates of electors.At the heart of the Trump legal team’s filing was the extraordinary contention that Trump both was entitled to absolute presidential immunity and that the immunity applied whether or not Trump intended to engage in the conduct described in the indictment. More

    • 50 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Sandra Day O’Connor obituary

      by

      Sandra Day O’Connor, who has died aged 93, had two principal claims to fame. The first was indisputable: she was the first woman to serve as a justice of the US supreme court, holding office from 1981 to 2006. The second claim was less certain but widely believed among her fellow US citizens – that hers was the key vote that put George W Bush rather than Al Gore into the White House after the cliffhanging election of 2000.With the outcome dependent on Florida’s 25 electoral college votes, both candidates had asked a succession of state and federal courts to rule on the validity of Florida’s ramshackle voting procedures. A three-week succession of contradictory judicial rulings inevitably brought the case before the US’s highest court.By this time O’Connor had already served in the supreme court for nearly two decades and had repeatedly cast the deciding vote in a succession of 5-4 judgments by the nine justices. With the court more or less evenly divided between conservatives and reformers, she had emerged as the reliable centrist in a wide range of criminal, social and political decisions.The presidential election case centred on a Florida supreme court ruling that had extended the deadline for vote recounts. The inexorable reference to the US supreme court was greeted with private dismay by the justices. One of the conservatives, Clarence Thomas, later told a congressional hearing: “If there was a way … to have avoided getting involved in that very difficult decision and simultaneously living up to my oath, I would have done it.”The ostensible issue was a narrow technical point with, as it turned out, vast international consequences. In her questioning, O’Connor repeatedly asked whether the Florida court was trying to change the rules in the middle of the election (a breach of the constitutional requirement for equal protection under the law).Eventually, with her colleagues split down the middle, she voted to stop the recount, overturning the Florida judgment, and in effect awarding the election to Bush. There were, of course, immediate accusations that her Republican background had determined her decision.Justice John Paul Stevens, one of those in the minority, warned that by questioning the impartiality of the Florida courts, the supreme court’s decision undermined confidence in judges, which “is the true backbone of the rule of law”. In his dissenting judgment he declared: “Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year’s presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the nation’s confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”In 2013, O’Connor herself expressed misgivings that the supreme court had taken on the Bush v Gore case at all, saying that the case “stirred up the public” and “gave the court a less than perfect reputation”.The supreme court had been an all-male institution for 191 years when President Ronald Reagan nominated O’Connor as its 102nd associate justice in 1981, elevating her from the Arizona court of appeals.She joined the eight men at the top of the legal hierarchy largely because Reagan had got himself into a political hole in his 1980 bid for the presidency, by opposing a constitutional move to outlaw sexual discrimination.The Equal Rights Amendment was a lively issue because, though Congress had passed it in 1972, its ratification by the required 38 state legislatures missed the 1979 deadline, which was then extended to June 1982. With two years to go and three ratifications needed for victory, supporters ferociously lobbied the 1980 presidential candidates in the last chance they had for effective political action. (The amendment eventually died in November 1983 for want of state support.)Reagan found himself squeezed between the demands of a block of increasingly significant female voters and the resistance of the die-hard Republican right. The battle over the amendment had, inevitably, become entwined with that about abortion. In an effort to divert this complex row Reagan promised that one of his first nominations to the supreme court would be a woman.He was called on to honour this pledge far sooner than he expected. Barely had he arrived in the White House than Justice Potter Stewart announced his retirement. In his memoirs, Reagan said that his brief to the attorney general had been to find a female judge “who would interpret the constitution, not try to rewrite it”.O’Connor was nominated because, he wrote, “everything we had learned about her during our months of searching convinced me she was a woman of great legal intellect, fairness, and integrity – the antithesis of an ideological judge, and just what I wanted on the court”.His judgment in this instance turned out to be a great deal sounder than many of his others. Over the following decades O’Connor became a widely respected judge – and was seen by many as a strong contender to follow William Rehnquist as chief justice – and she established herself as one of the most important voices in the supreme court. Time and again she faced a 4-4 split in the court’s provisional opinions and was called upon either to devise a compromise before the formal judgment was proclaimed or, if compromise was impossible, to join one of the factions. Hers was the deciding vote on many controversial cases, when she often sided with her more liberal colleagues, including on gender equality cases, affirmative action and in upholding for many years the landmark abortion ruling Roe v Wade.Her instinct was always to err on the side of judicial restraint and to accept the judgment of state courts, unless there appeared compelling grounds for federal intervention; this issue of states’ rights, enshrined in the 10th amendment, lies at the heart of US government and is often the foundation of political and legal disputes.O’Connor had an unusual background for a supreme court justice. Describing herself as a “cowgirl from the Arizona desert”, she was born in El Paso, Texas, the daughter of Ada Mae (nee Wilkey) and Harry Day, and grew up on the 198,000-acre ranch her grandfather had acquired on the Arizona-New Mexico border in 1880, later leaving home to live with her grandmother in El Paso so that she could attend a private girls’ school.From there she went to Stanford University in California, gaining a first in economics and then, as third best in a field of 102, a bachelor of law degree. At the top of that year was Rehnquist, supreme court justice from 1971 and chief justice from 1986 until his death in 2005. The two students became close friends.Rehnquist’s progress was rather smoother than his classmate’s. Shortly after her graduation in 1952 she married her fellow student John Jay O’Connor and began a fruitless hunt for a legal position in California. As she commented later of the firms she approached, “none had ever hired a woman before as a lawyer and they were not prepared to do so”. The only offer she received was to work at one of the companies as a secretary.When her husband joined the US army legal service she accompanied him to Germany for three years and worked as a civilian lawyer for the Quartermaster Corps. The first of their three children was born shortly after their return to Arizona in 1957, and though O’Connor started a legal practice in Phoenix it did little business and she was mostly preoccupied with domestic life.She resumed her full-time career in 1965, serving as the state’s assistant attorney general for four years. When a seat in the Arizona state senate became vacant in the middle of its term, the state governor appointed O’Connor to fill it; she later took the seat as a Republican when it came up for election in 1972.With a reputation for hard work and a precise and concise mind, she was elected the chamber’s majority leader in 1973, the first woman to hold such a position in US history. Her voting record was of moderate conservatism, with occasional excursions into social activism on issues such as contraception and women’s legal rights. After two terms in the legislature, however, she decided there was a brighter future in the judicial branch of government.Under the system of voting for judges prevailing in many US states, she won election on the Republican ticket in 1975 to the county superior court, where she gained a reputation as a stern but fair judge, deeply concerned about prison conditions for those she sentenced. She also became more involved in politics at a national level, supporting Reagan’s candidacy against Gerald Ford in the 1976 presidential nomination battle.O’Connor was encouraged by some of Arizona’s leading Republicans to run for the governorship against the Democratic candidate, Bruce Babbitt, in the 1978 elections, but she refused. In what was widely seen as a move by Babbitt to neutralise a dangerous political rival, he appointed her to the Arizona court of appeals soon after he took office.In 1981, O’Connor was nominated as a supreme court judge. At her Senate confirmation hearing she laid out her philosophy of judicial restraint. Spelling out her commitment to the constitution’s separation of powers, she said: “Judges are not only not authorised to engage in executive or legislative functions, they are also ill-equipped to do so.” In the subsequent vote by the chamber she only missed unanimous confirmation because one of the 100 members was absent through illness.During her years in the court she became extremely popular among the staff as a humorous and approachable boss. She started an aerobics class for female employees, in which she was an enthusiastic participant, and became well known for the informality of the conferences she held with young lawyers, handing out popcorn while discussing cases.Largely under her influence, the court steered a firm, middle-of-the-road course through most of the contentious issues it had to confront. That was a solid achievement in itself. But her greater contribution was successfully to destroy the myth that women lacked judicial skills of the highest calibre. She cut a very large hole in the glass ceiling.O’Connor retired from the supreme court in 2006, after her husband developed Alzheimer’s disease; he died in 2009. She continued as an active public speaker, and was an advocate for civic education. In 2018 she announced that she had developed early stage Alzheimer’s herself and would no longer play a part in public affairs.She is survived by her sons, Scott, Brian and Jay, six grandchildren and her brother, Alan. Sandra Day O’Connor, jurist, born 26 March 1930; died 1 December 2023Harold Jackson died in 2021 More

    • 188 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Bait and switch’: Liz Cheney book tears into Mike Johnson over pro-Trump January 6 brief

      by

      In a new book, the anti-Trump Republican Liz Cheney accuses the US House speaker, Mike Johnson, of dishonesty over both the authorship of a supreme court brief in support of Donald Trump’s attempt to overthrow the 2020 election and the document’s contents, saying Johnson duped his party with a “bait and switch”.“As I read the amicus brief – which was poorly written – it became clear Mike was being less than honest,” Cheney writes. “He was playing bait and switch, assuring members that the brief made no claims about specific allegations of [electoral] fraud when, in fact, it was full of such claims.”Cheney also says Johnson was neither the author of the brief nor a “constitutional law expert”, as he was “telling colleagues he was”. Pro-Trump lawyers actually wrote the document, Cheney writes.As Trump’s attempts to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden progressed towards the deadly January 6 attack on Congress, Cheney was a House Republican leader. Turning against Trump, she sat on the House January 6 committee and was ostracised by her party, losing her Wyoming seat last year.Her book, Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning, will be published next week. The Guardian obtained a copy.Johnson became speaker last month, after McCarthy was ejected by the Trumpist far right, the first House speaker ever removed by his own party.On Tuesday, CNN ran excerpts from Cheney’s book, quoting her view that Johnson “appeared especially susceptible to flattery from Trump and aspired to being anywhere in Trump’s orbit”.CNN also reported that Cheney writes: “When I confronted him with the flaws in his legal arguments, Johnson would often concede, or say something to the effect of, ‘We just need to do this one last thing for Trump.’”But Cheney’s portrait of Johnson’s manoeuvres is more comprehensive and arguably considerably more damning.The case in which the amicus brief was filed saw Republican states led by Texas attempt to persuade the supreme court to side with Trump over his electoral fraud lies.It did not. As Cheney points out, even the two most rightwing justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, who wanted to hear the case, said they would not have sided with the complainants.Cheney describes how Johnson, then Republican study committee chair, emailed GOP members on 9 December 2020 to say Trump had “specifically” asked him to request all Republicans in Congress “join on to our brief”.Johnson, Cheney says, insisted he was not trying to pressure people and simply wanted to show support for Trump, by “affirm[ing] for the court (and our constituents back home) our serious concerns with the integrity of our electoral system” and seeking “careful, timely review”.“Mike was seriously misleading our members,” Cheney writes. “The brief did assert as facts known to the amici many allegations of fraud and serious wrongdoing by officials in multiple states.”Johnson, she says, then told Republicans that 105 House members had expressed interest. “Not one of them had seen the brief,” Cheney writes. She also says he added “a new inaccurate claim”, that state officials had been “clearly shown” to have violated the constitution.“But virtually all those claims had already been heard by the courts and decided against Trump.”Calling the brief “poorly written”, Cheney says she doubted Johnson’s honesty and asked him who wrote it, as “to assert facts in a federal court without personal knowledge” would “present ethical questions for anyone who is a member of the bar”.The general counsel to McCarthy, then Republican minority leader, told Cheney that McCarthy would not sign the brief, while McCarthy’s chief of staff also called it “a bait and switch”. McCarthy told her he would not sign on. When the brief was filed, McCarthy had not signed it. But “less than 24 hours later, a revised version … bore the names of 20 additional members. Among them was Kevin McCarthy.“Mike Johnson blamed a ‘clerical error’ … [which] was also the rationale given to the supreme court for the revised filing. In fact, McCarthy had first chosen not to be on the brief, then changed his mind, likely because of pressure from Trump.”It took the court a few hours to reject the Texas suit. But the saga was not over. Trump continued to seek to overturn his defeat, culminating in the deadly attack on Congress on 6 January 2021 by supporters whom he told to “fight like hell”.Cheney takes other shots at Johnson. But in picking apart his role in the amicus brief, she strikes close to claims made for his legal abilities as he grasped the speaker’s gavel last month. Johnson “was telling our colleagues he was a constitutional law expert, while advocating positions that were constitutionally infirm”, Cheney writes.Citing conversations with other Republicans about Johnson’s “lawsuit gimmick” (as she says James Comer of Kentucky, now House oversight chair, called it), Cheney says she “ultimately learned” that Johnson did not write the brief.“A team of lawyers who were also apparently advising Trump had in fact drafted [it],” she writes. “Mike Johnson had left the impression that he was responsible for the brief, but he was just carrying Trump’s water.”The Guardian contacted Johnson for comment. Earlier, responding to CNN, a Trump spokesperson said Cheney’s book belonged “in the fiction section of the bookstore”.Cheney also considers the run-up to January 6 and the historic day itself. Before it, she writes, she and Johnson discussed mounting danger of serious unrest. He agreed, she says, but cited support for Trump among Republican voters as a reason not to abandon the president. Such support from Johnson and other senior Republicans, Cheney writes, allowed Trump to create a full-blown crisis.Two and a half years on, notwithstanding 91 criminal charges, 17 for election subversion, Trump is the clear frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination. He polls close to or ahead of Biden.In certain circumstances, close elections can be thrown to the House – which Mike Johnson now controls. More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      The US supreme court’s new ‘ethics code’ is an embarrassment | Moira Donegan

      by

      One of the unspoken rules of the US supreme court is that the justices will never admit that they were wrong, and no one else is allowed to admit it, either.Last week, in oral arguments in United States v Rahimi – which asks whether it is constitutional to take guns away from men who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders – the solicitor general, Elizabeth Prelogar, had to dance around this rule very delicately as she represented the federal government. The federal law disarming abusers had been thrown into question by a ludicrous and dangerous test for all gun restrictions that the supreme court instituted in its 2022 Bruen decision, one which makes it difficult to impose new gun laws if those laws aren’t sufficiently similar to ones on the books from either the revolutionary or civil war eras.It’s a ridiculous test, one that is self-evidently not workable. But Prelogar couldn’t say that; instead, she said that lower courts had simply misinterpreted the court’s perfect test, making mistakes of methodology; that the prospect that domestic abusers could be rearmed, leading to the murders of thousands of American women, was not a result of the court’s reckless, short-sighted and self-interested decision making, but a result of other people’s mistakes. She asked them not to clean up their mess, but to “clarify” their thinking.Something similar to Prelogar’s solicitous fiction about the justices’ infallibility was evident in the justices’ own missive, issued on Monday, declaring that the court would adopt a code of conduct. On the surface, this looked like a positive step. The supreme court has come under fire in recent months for its justices’ flagrant abuses of their station: their familiarity with billionaires who shower them with gifts and vacations; their lavish lifestyles and magically disappearing debts; their willingness to appear at fundraisers for political groups, and reluctance to recuse themselves from cases involving their family members, friends or financial interests.But none of this was a real problem, the justices assured us. These concerns, they claim in a statement accompanying their new code of conduct, were not legitimate, and certainly not the product of any actual mistakes or nefariousness on the justices’ part. Rather, they were merely the result of the failure of the silly, misinformed and stupid public to understand that the court, in its mighty wisdom, is already perfectly ethical.“The absence of a Code,” the justices wrote, “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.” However did Americans get that impression?It is meaningful that the justices issued this code of conduct; it means that the public pressure on the court – which has been the subject of outrage and disgust since its 2022 Dobbs decision eliminating the constitutional right to an abortion, and which has subsequently come under increased scrutiny for its indifference to either the appearance or the reality of conflicts of interests – is working.The justices often make it clear that they read their own press, but they do not often deign to make any changes to their actual behavior, or to try to discipline their own institution. More often than not, they suggest that such gestures would be beneath them. Not so with the code of conduct, which signals that the justices admit that there is at least some obligation they have to the American people. As the legal commentator Chris Geidner put it, “They have acknowledged that the public rightfully has expectations that they will behave in an ethical way.” It’s better than nothing.But not much better. The new code of conduct, the justices assure us, is merely a formalization of guidelines to which they already adhered, a claim which on its own raises doubts about the code’s sufficiency. The code is based on a binding code of conduct that is applied to judges on the lower courts – but significantly weakened in its application to the supreme court justices.The commanding word “shall” that characterizes the lower courts’ code of conduct is softened throughout, in the supreme court version, to “should”. Prohibitions on corruption are dotted with exonerating qualifiers, like Swiss cheese. Where the lower courts’ code says judges shall not “lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the Justice or others” or “convey or permit others to convey that they are in a special position to influence the Justice”, the supreme court modifies this influence-peddling prohibition with a loophole big enough to drive Clarence Thomas’s RV through: the modifier “knowingly”.This kind of softening edit appears throughout the code: its strained language and convoluted application of exceptions seems like the product of vociferous intra-court infighting, or the lobbying of certain justices to ensure that their own questionable ongoing conduct can be excepted from the code. This might be the code’s one silver lining: its language seems evidence of chaos, disagreement and discord on the court, reminding us that even though we are stuck with this conservative supermajority, they are also stuck with each other.Even this weakened and exception-ridden code, it should be noted, has no enforcement mechanism. There is no way to investigate whether a justice has broken the code, no way to adjudicate the question of his or her wrongdoing, and no way to discipline him or her for any violation. The question of how to interpret the code, how to abide by it, and what to do in the event that it is broken is left entirely to the justices themselves – just like all their ethical questions were before.This response to questions about the court’s ethics with a defiant insistence that they will only ever police themselves is consistent with the way the justices have responded in the past. This is, after all, the same court that has refused to cooperate with congressional oversight of its own ethical misdeeds and appearance of corruption just this year, with the chief justice, John Roberts, issuing a contemptuous refusal to appear before the Senate judiciary committee in April. Justice Samuel Alito, meanwhile, opined to the Wall Street Journal this summer that Congress had no right to impose oversight or regulation on the court – that the justices and their power are immune from the principles of checks and balances.A belief that the court is its own sole and highest authority was also evident the last time the justices tried to explain away their own misconduct, when they issued a “Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices”. Like this code of conduct, that statement, published just this past April, also had no enforcement mechanism; like this one, it seemed more designed to quell public outrage about the court than to meaningfully circumscribe the justices’ behavior. No one fell for it that time, either.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 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