US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 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

    • 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