US supreme court

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Americans want to join unions. The supreme court doesn’t like that | Moira Donegan

      by

      Their contract had expired, so the local teamsters, drivers of concrete-mixing barrel trucks for a firm called Glacier Northwest, in Washington state, decided to walk off the job. Like all strikes, the point of the work stoppage was to inflict financial consequences on a recalcitrant management side: to show the bosses that their employees were united in shared interest and mutual protection and that it would cost them less money to negotiate in good faith and agree to the workers’ demands than to continue to fight the union for less favorable, more exploitative conditions. When the teamsters began their strike, 16 of the barrel mixing trucks were full. They drove them back to the Glacier Northwest lot and left them there.But if you don’t mix concrete, it hardens, and becomes useless. If this happens in a barrel truck, sometimes that can cause damage to the truck, too. When Glacier Northwest realized that their teamster employees had gone on strike, non-union workers were able to remove the concrete over the course of five hours, averting damage to the trucks. But they lost the use of all the concrete that had been mixed in those 16 barrel trucks that day.This injury – the loss of 16 trucks’ worth of concrete to a regional construction supplier in the north-west – is the pretext that the US supreme court used this week to weaken the National Labor Relations Board and deal a blow to the right to strike.In the case, Glacier Northwest v International Brotherhood of Teamsters, eight of the court’s nine justices found that management could sue the union for the damage caused to their property during the strike. Only Justice Jackson dissented. In addition to encouraging companies to sue their workers over strikes and ensuring that unions will pre-emptively avoid strikes or adopt less effective tactics to protect themselves from liability, the ruling also opens a wide new avenue for union-busting litigators to evade the authority of the National Labor Relations Board – the federal body that was created by Congress specifically to handle such conflicts and enforce workers’ rights.The decision, then, furthers two of the supreme court’s major long-term projects: the erosion of labor protections, and the weakening of administrative agencies, whose expertise the court routinely ignores and whose authority the justices seem determined to usurp for themselves.It might risk reinforcing the dramatically low standards for the supreme court’s behavior to note that the majority opinion, authored by Amy Coney Barrett, did not represent the worst of all possible outcomes. Barrett included some limiting language in her writing that preserves the possibility of binding NLRB oversight in these lawsuits. She clarified that unions do have some right to time their strikes in order to maximize financial damage to management – a move that would protect, say, the right of Amazon workers to initiate work stoppages during the holiday shipping rush, as they did last year. The gestures toward a continued right to strike appear designed to secure the votes of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who joined the majority, and to dilute the power of Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, who wanted to gut NLRB authority over strike-related litigation entirely.But it is important to consider Glacier Northwest in context: in recent years, the court has made it easier for companies to bar their employees from bringing class-action lawsuits, made it harder for public-sector unions to collect dues and struck down a California law that allowed unions to recruit agricultural workers on farms. The new ruling, which finds that strikes are often illegal when they lead to damage to employers’ property, only furthers their long project of making it harder for workers to join a union, easier for employers to break one up, and more legally risky for workers to take the kinds of action that can actually elicit concessions from the boss.It will get worse. If they get their way – a less procedurally complicated case, a more amenable vote from Roberts, Barrett or Kavanaugh – the court’s most extreme conservatives will shape a bleak future for American labor. Their aim is to all but eliminate rights to organize and strike that are enjoyed by people in the most important, foundational and meaningful part of their public lives: the workplace.“Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their master,” Jackson wrote in her dissent. But that is the labor settlement that at least three members of the extremist conservative wing hope to enact. There is only one direction that this court’s labor jurisprudence is going.The ruling comes at a moment when the American labor movement, long dormant and defeated, is experiencing something like a small resurgence, however timid and sporadic. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of unionized workers grew last year in both the public and private sectors, with the biggest increases in sectors like transportation and warehousing, arts and entertainment and durable goods manufacturing.This growth has been accompanied by highly visible, media-savvy worker organizing drives among journalists, fast-food workers and graduate student instructors, and comes on the heels of high-profile strikes by groups ranging from Oakland teachers to Hollywood writers. Since 2021, this union resurgence has been aided in no small part by the Biden NLRB, which has been unusually hospitable to labor’s claims, even for a Democratic administration.More and more workers are saying that they want to be a part of a union – and more and more of them are finding ways around the many and onerous obstacles designed to prevent them from forming one. Given the growing power of American unions, maybe the anti-worker court is right to be scared.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      The Supermajority review: How the supreme court trumped America

      by

      Michael Waldman ran the speechwriting department in Bill Clinton’s White House. His new book about the conservative supermajority which dominates the supreme court is written with the verve of great campaign oratory.Waldman is also a learned lawyer, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, and a talented popular historian. His new book focuses on three horrendous decisions the court rendered at the end of its term one year ago, but it includes a brisk history the court of the last 200 years, from the disastrous lows of Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) and Plessy v Ferguson (1896) to the highs of Brown v Board of Education (1954) and Obergefell v Hodges (2015).But the longest analysis is devoted to those three days in June 2022 when the court “crammed decades of social change into three days”.Waldman writes: “It overturned Roe v Wade [on abortion] … putting at risk all other privacy rights. It radically loosened curbs on guns, amid an epidemic of mass shootings. And it hobbled the ability of government agencies to protect public health and safety and stop climate change.”These decisions were the work “of a little group of willful men and women, ripping up long-settled aspects of American life for no reason beyond the fact that they can”.Waldman describes how earlier extreme decisions of the court provoked gigantic national backlashes.The civil war started just four years after the court held in Dred Scott that African Americans could not sue in federal court because they could not be citizens of the United States.In May 1935, the “Black Monday decisions” obliterated key parts of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, including striking down the National Recovery Administration. Those rulings led to Roosevelt’s unsuccessful plan to expand the size of the court, which in turn led the court to reverse its position on the New Deal, suddenly upholding Social Security and the National Labor Relations Act. Referring to the number of justices on the court, one newspaper humorist called it “the switch in time that saved nine”.Waldman describes the current make-up of the court as the ultimate outcome of the longest backlash of all – the one to the court led by Earl Warren, who crafted the unanimous opinion in Brown, outlawing segregation in public schools.Equally important were decisions requiring legislative districts to have equal populations. Before Reynolds v Sims in 1964, nearly 40% of the population of California lived in Los Angeles but the state constitution awarded that county just one of 40 state senators. Proclaiming the revolutionary doctrine of “one person, one vote”, the court said: “Legislators represent people, not trees or acres.” By 1968, 93 of 99 state legislatures had redrawn their districts to comply.But these vital building blocks of modern American democracy coincided with the dramatic social changes of the 1960s, including the fight for racial equality and the explosion of sexual freedom.“The backlash to the 1960s lasted much longer than the 1960s did,” Waldman observes. “Most of us have spent most of our lives living in it.”Richard Nixon’s 1968 campaign was the first to capitalize on this backlash. A young campaign aide, Kevin Phillips, explained the plan to the journalist Garry Wills: “The whole secret of politics” was “knowing who hates who”, a theory that reached its apotheosis 50 years later with the ascendance of Donald Trump.The problem for America was that most of the energy on the left dissipated after the election of Nixon. At the same time, the right began a decades-long battle to turn back the clock. For 50 years, the right has had overwhelming organizational energy: it built a huge infrastructure of think tanks and political action committees that culminated with the election of Trump and his appointment of the three justices who cemented the rightwing supermajority.Recent reports have highlighted the enormous amounts of money that have directly benefitted justices John Roberts and Clarence Thomas (never mind Thomas’s own gifts from Harlan Crow) through payments to their wives. Waldman reminds us how long this has been going on. Way back in 2012, Common Cause charged that Thomas failed to disclose nearly $700,000 from the Heritage Foundation to his wife, forcing him amend 20 years of filings.Waldman is particularly good at explaining how earlier rulings have accelerated the infusion of gigantic sums that have corrupted American politics. Most important of course was Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, in 2010, when five justices including Roberts “undid a century of campaign finance law”.Citizens United made it possible for corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums in federal elections as long as they plausibly pretended they were independent of the candidates they backed. As Waldman writes, quickly “that proved illusory, as presidential contenders … raised hundreds of millions of dollars for their campaigns, all of it supposedly independent”.This was the beginning of the Roberts majority’s use of the first amendment guarantee of free speech “to undermine democracy, a constitutional contradiction”. Two years after Citizens United, the court eliminated “a long-standing cap on the amount” individuals could give to federal candidates.These rulings “remade American politics”, Waldman writes. “In the new Gilded Age of fantastically concentrated wealth, billionaires again dominated the electoral system.”The shift was dramatic “and largely unremarked”. In 2010, billionaires spent about $31m in federal races. A decade later they spent $2.2bn. Last year, Peter Thiel provided nearly $30m in “independent funds” to support JD Vance in Ohio and Blake Masters in Arizona.Waldman concludes that the court has become a serious threat to American democracy. He suggests our only hope is that Democratic successes in last year’s midterms – many based on fury over the fall of Roe v Wade – mark the beginning of a backlash against the rightwing revolution the court now shamelessly promotes.
      The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided America is published in the US by Simon & Schuster More

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      DeSantis envisions ‘quarter-century’ of far-right majority in the supreme court

      by

      In a speech to Christian media in Orlando, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, envisaged the creation of a “7-2 conservative majority that would last a quarter-century” on the US supreme court should he be elected president next year.Speaking to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention, DeSantis said: “I think if you look over the next two presidential terms, there is a good chance that you could be called upon to seek replacements for Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito and the issue with that is, you can’t really do better than those two.”Supreme court justices serve for life or until they choose to retire. Thomas, who has rejected calls to resign over his relationship with a Republican mega-donor, is 74. Alito is 73. Both are hard-right figures on a court tipped firmly right, 6-3.But DeSantis also alluded to a chance to replace Sonia Sotomayor, a liberal appointed by Barack Obama who is now 68, or perhaps Elena Kagan, another Obama appointee who is now 63, should he win the White House and serve two full terms.He said: “So it is possible that in those eight years, we have the opportunity to fortify justices … Alito and Thomas as well as actually make improvements with those others, and if you were able to do that, you would have a 7-2 conservative majority on the supreme court that would last a quarter-century.”According to the Washington Post, DeSantis’s comments were met with “raucous applause”.The governor also took a shot at John Roberts, the conservative chief justice who has sided with liberals on key decisions, including the one last year which eliminated federal abortion rights.“If you replace a Clarence Thomas with somebody like a Roberts or somebody like that,” DeSantis said, “then you’re gonna actually see the court move to the left, and you can’t do that.”Under Roberts, the court has moved to the right.Last year, Alito wrote the opinion in Dobbs v Jackson, which removed abortion rights. Thomas wrote the opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, striking down a gun control law in place since 1911.DeSantis, 44, is expected to announce his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination this week.Donald Trump, 76, is the clear frontrunner to face President Joe Biden, who is 80 and beat Trump in 2020. On Monday, however, Fox News reported that 100 Trump White House alumni have formed a pro-DeSantis group called the Eight-Year Alliance.DeSantis is preparing to launch a campaign fueled by hard-right state legislation. Notable policies have included a crackdown on the teaching of LGBTQ+ issues and of race in US history, legislation targeting trans people in public life, a loosening of gun control laws and a six-week abortion ban.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMany observers say that record may prove too extreme for voters in a presidential election.On abortion rights, for example, public opinion is consistently against the kind of extreme bans recently passed in Republican states.In Orlando, the Post said, DeSantis “promoted the six-week abortion ban he helped enact this year … a divisive topic he tends to brush past, even with staunchly conservative audiences”.The governor’s comments were “brief”, the Post said. But when he said his ban was meant to “protect an unborn child that has a detectable heartbeat”, he was “drowned out by extended cheers”.Gynecologists say fetuses do not have heartbeats at six weeks, a stage at which many women do not know they are pregnant.In Orlando, DeSantis said his ban was “the right thing to do”. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats fight to expand a ‘broken and illegitimate’ supreme court

      by

      Wearing dark suit and sunglasses reminiscent of a character in The Matrix, Brian Fallon pointed a finger at the gleaming US Capitol building to his left, then to the marble edifice of the supreme court to his right.“If you look at any point in the last 40 years, Congress’s public approval always hovers around 10%,” said Fallon, a former justice department official who worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. “But the [supreme] court’s is now in the 30s and that’s a historical anomaly because there’s always at least been the benefit of the doubt conferred upon the court.”There is no better symbol of the crisis of trust in American institutions than its highest court, pummeled by partisan appointments, divisive rulings and ethical scandals. In a University of Chicago survey last year just 18% of Americans said they had a great deal of confidence in the supreme court – the lowest in half a century.Congressional Democrats and allies such as Fallon, now head of the pressure group Demand Justice, believe that they have a solution: expand the court by adding four seats to counter a rightward tilt during the Donald Trump administration that, they say, put it out of step with mainstream public opinion.This week a group including Senators Ed Markey, Tina Smith and Elizabeth Warren, and representatives Jerrold Nadler, Hank Johnson, Cori Bush and Adam Schiff announced the reintroduction of legislation that would create a 13-justice bench.At a press conference in front of the supreme court steps, surrounded by activists holding “Expand the court” signs as tourists and school groups wandered by, they pointed out that, while Democrats gained more votes in seven of the last eight presidential elections and represent 40 million more people in the Senate, Republicans have appointed 15 of the last 19 justices.These two “stolen” seats, the group argues, after Republicans blocked the confirmation of President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland in 2016 only to ram through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett 10 days before the 2020 election, even as millions of votes were being cast for Joe Biden.Now, Markey said, it is time to “fix this broken and illegitimate court” with a forceful response. He said: “When a bully steals your lunch money in the schoolyard, you have to do something about it, or else the bully will come back over and over again,” he said. “So we’re in this fight, and we’re going to reclaim these seats. We’re not going to allow the bully to win.”The Massachusetts senator also called for the resignation of Justice Clarence Thomas over his failure disclose gifts provided by the billionaire Republican donor Harlan Crow and his wife Ginni’s more than $680,000 in unreported income from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank. “We’ve got to remind him that we have a system of constitutional checks and balances, not cheques or balances.”The speakers argued that, given recent decisions on abortion rights, voting rights, gun control measures and environmental regulations, the supreme court is beholden to rightwing special interests and facing a crisis of legitimacy.Schiff, a congressman from California, said: “This is not a conservative court, not in a legal sense. A conservative court would have some respect for precedent. This is instead a political and partisan court with a reactionary social agenda and the only question, Mitch McConnell having packed the court, is will we do anything about it or will we subject an entire generation of Americans to the loss of their rights?“Dirtier air and dirtier water and dirtier elections? Is that the fate we would have for the next generation? My kids are both in their early 20 and I am not satisfied that they should have to live under a reactionary supreme court for their entire adult lives and I don’t want anyone else’s kids to have to suffer that fate.”The legislative effort was first launched two years ago but this time it is backed by Planned Parenthood and Naral Pro-Choice America, spurred by the court’s decision last year to overturn the constitutional right to abortion after nearly 50 years.Jacqueline Ayers, senior vice-president of policy, campaigns and advocacy at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, noted that 19 states have since moved to ban the procedure. “The moment is calling for us to realise that it’s necessary that we have fairness, that we have balance in our supreme court,” she said. “The bottom line is the courts are being used as a weapon to take away our rights.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionCongress has added and removed seats on the supreme seven times throughout its history – though the most recent example goes all the way back to the presidency of Ulysses S Grant in 1869. Supporters also contend that 13 is not an arbitrary number but based on sound logic: it would mean one justice per circuit court of appeals, consistent with how the number of justices was originally determined.But they face an uphill battle to persuade Biden and other senior Democrats to put the issue front and centre of next year’s election campaign. In 2021 a report by the president’s supreme court reform commission suggested that “court packing” would be a cure that is worse than the disease, citing autocrats using it to shore up power in Argentina, Venezuela, Turkey, Hungary and Poland.Biden, who hangs a portrait of Franklin Roosevelt in the Oval Office, may also be wary of what happened when the 32nd president, up against a supreme court that ruled parts of his New Deal unconstitutional, floated a plan in 1937 that could have expanded the bench to 15 seats. It was unpopular with the public and failed to clear the Senate.Bill Galston, a former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, said: “I don’t think the Biden White House are going to walk down that road during a presidential election. You don’t need to know a lot of American history to remember what happened the last time a president tried to do this – that was a president at the very peak of his popularity and no one can say that President Biden is at the very peak of his.”Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution thinktank in Washington, added: “The general Democratic narrative is that Republicans are trying to change the rules to their advantage and a White House-led effort to expand or, as the Republicans would say, instantly pack the supreme court would blow up that narrative and create a new centre of attention with the Democrats on the defensive.”Conservatives would indeed cry foul at any such proposal and accuse Democrats of hypocrisy. Curt Levey, president of the advocacy group Committee for Justice, said: “If you could just add seats every time one party controls both Congress and the presidency then the supreme court would reflect whatever party was in power at the time and it would be a completely politicised supreme court. It would be very dangerous.”He added: “It strikes me that the Democrats are sore losers here. You had a liberal activist supreme court arguably from 1937 to as late as 2015 and during that entire 80-year period Republicans did not call for packing the court and they did not question the court’s legitimacy. They complained about the court’s decisions but they really never tried to undermine the court.“It’s only been three years since Barrett was appointed and there was a real conservative majority in the court and the Democrats just can’t stand it. They have used the court to implement their agenda for so many decades that the idea that they’ve lost that is just driving them crazy.”Democrats contend, however, that in recent years Republican dominated state legislatures have been content to expand the number of seats on their states’ respective supreme courts.The national effort has a new sense of momentum with the backing of dozens of civil liberties, education, climate and labour organisations, while last year’s midterm elections showed the political potency of abortion rights. Fallon described the presence of Planned Parenthood and Naral this week as “a gamechanger”.Acknowledging that Biden will be “one of the last dominoes to fall”, Fallon predicted that supreme court expansion could be on the agenda for Democrats in next year’s congressional elections, for example in Senate primary races in California and Maryland and in House races in New York and Los Angeles.He said in an interview: “If you want to be a Democratic candidate speaking to that outrage, if you want to mobilise those voters upset about rulings that come out of the court on reproductive rights, now you need to have this as part of your arsenal and what you’re going to promise in terms of what you’ll support when you get to Washington.“It might not be on the timeline of Joe Biden in 2024 but certainly in 2028, when there’s another open contested presidential primary, I would expect by then that every candidate has to be for it.”
      This article was amended on 21 May 2023 to replace an incorrect photograph of Ed Markey. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court pursuing rightwing agenda via ‘shadow docket’, book says

      by

      Conservative justices on the US supreme court consciously broke with decades-old congressional rules and norms to shift laws governing religious freedom sharply to the right through a series of shadowy unsigned and unexplained emergency orders, a new book reveals.Five of the six conservatives who now command the majority on the US’s most powerful court have rammed through some of their most contentious and extreme partisan decisions using the so-called “shadow docket” – unsigned orders issued frequently late at night, in literal and metaphorical darkness. The orders do not reveal who voted for them or why, often providing one-line explanations of the legal thinking behind them.The switch from openly argued cases, aired in public, to the unaccountability of the shadow docket was made purposefully during the pandemic in cases dealing with religious liberty, concludes Stephen Vladeck, an authority on the federal courts at the University of Texas law school. He warns that the trend is merging with the current ethics scandals surrounding the conservative justice Clarence Thomas to damage the legitimacy of the court and threaten a full-blown constitutional crisis.Vladeck exposes the largely unnoticed shift towards furtive justice in his new book, The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic. He shows how rightwing justices have abused the court’s emergency powers to run roughshod over the longstanding norm that shadow docket orders should be used sparingly and with extreme caution.Rightwing justices are now deploying such orders dozens of times each term. Over three terms alone, from 2019 to 2022, the court granted emergency relief in more than 60 cases: effectively overturning the considered decisions of lower courts through rushed, unexplained rulings.Among those orders were decisions that have had profound and nationwide impact over some of the most hotly disputed areas of public life, from abortion to immigration, voting rights, the death penalty and religious practices. Many appear to align more closely with Republican political priorities than with legal principles.One such order alone, the decision on the shadow docket to block the Biden administration’s January 2022 requirement that large employers mandate Covid vaccinations for their workforce, affected more than 83 million Americans – about a quarter of the US population.“The rise of the shadow docket reflects a power grab by a court that has, for better or worse, been insulated from any kind of legislative response,” Vladeck writes.The author chronicles how the most disturbing use of the shadow docket came with the rewriting of constitutional protections for religious liberty. The dramatic shift followed the death of the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her replacement in 2020 with a devout Catholic rightwinger, Amy Coney Barrett.The switch gave the conservative majority sufficient votes to overcome all resistance to ramping up use of the shadow docket, including from the chief justice, John Roberts, who though conservative has expressed mounting unease about the practice.The change in tactics could be seen almost immediately. Within weeks of taking her seat, Barrett joined four other rightwingers – Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – to drive through a major change in the constitutional understanding of religious liberty, blocking New York state Covid restrictions on the numbers of worshippers allowed to gather in churches.The order was unsigned and gave virtually no explanation for a decision that profoundly changed the law of the land, rolling back government regulations where they touched upon religious practices. It was issued at four minutes before midnight on the day before Thanksgiving – a moment that would guarantee minimal media attention.The ruling was all the more extraordinary as by then New York had scaled back its Covid restrictions and churches no longer had to limit congregation sizes. So the court’s change in the law was moot.The same five rightwing justices went on to impose their will on religious liberty laws with similar late-night one-sentence rulings knocking back state Covid restrictions in California, New Jersey and Colorado. In total, the majority issued emergency injunctions against state Covid rules on religious grounds six times in four months.The sudden spate of shadow docket orders that followed Barrett’s arrival on the court was not accidental, Vladeck says. The justices could have taken up several pending cases in full court that would have addressed the issue of religious freedoms in open hearings on the merits, yet they chose to go the obscure shadow docket route.“Here we have the court not just using emergency applications to change substantive legal principles, but doing so even as they are considering requests to make the same changes through merits decisions,” Vladeck told the Guardian.Vladeck links the rise of the shadow docket to the increasing isolation of the supreme court and its disconnection from public opinion. The growing use of the shadow docket also mirrors the polarisation and toxification of American politics.Vladeck warns that the growing trend towards jurisprudence produced in darkness is endangering the legitimacy of the nation’s most powerful court. Public confidence in the court is already at a historic low, compounded by the recent revelations that Thomas accepted lavish gifts from the Republican billionaire Harlan Crow.“The shadow docket is a symptom of a larger disease,” Vladeck said. “The disease is how unchecked and unaccountable the court is today, compared to any of its predecessors.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US ethics watchdog calls on Clarence Thomas to resign over undisclosed gifts

      by

      The conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas must resign, an ethics watchdog said on Tuesday, citing revelations about Thomas’s failure to declare lavish gifts and financial support from a Republican mega-donor, Harlan Crow.In an open letter to the scandal-hit Thomas, Noah Bookbinder of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or Crew, cited a “grave crisis of institutional legitimacy currently facing the supreme court”.“For the sake of the court and for the sake of our democracy which depends on a judiciary that the public accepts as legitimate and free from corruption, we urge you to resign.”He added: “Your conduct has likely violated civil and criminal laws and has created the impression that access to and influence over supreme court justices is for sale.”Thomas has said he did not declare gifts from Crow including luxury travel and resort stays because he was advised not to do so, but will do so in future.He has not commented on reports that Crow bought from him property in which his mother still lives rent-free; that Crow paid for the private schooling for Thomas’s great-nephew, who the justice said he was raising like a son; and that the conservative activist Leonard Leo secretively arranged payment of tens of thousand dollars to Ginni Thomas, the justice’s rightwing activist wife.Leo and Crow deny wrongdoing.In the case of the school fees, Thomas did declare a gift from another donor for the same purpose. Critics say this shows he knew he should have declared gifts from Crow.Supreme court justices are notionally subject to ethics rules for federal justices but in practice govern themselves.Democrats in Congress have called for Thomas to be impeached and removed. That is a nonstarter, as Republicans hold the House, where impeachment would begin, and will protect the 6-3 conservative majority which has handed down major rulings including the removal of abortion rights. Democrats have also called for ethics reform.Senate Democrats sought to call the chief justice, John Roberts, to testify about ethics rules. Roberts refused. Democrats cannot use a subpoena to compel testimony – from Roberts, Thomas or any other justice – because without the ill and absent Dianne Feinstein of California they do not have the required majority.Last week the judiciary committee chair, Dick Durbin, urged Roberts to confront the Thomas issue, saying the chief justice “has the power in his hands to change this”.Durbin also said the “tangled web” around Thomas “just gets worse and worse by the day”.On Tuesday, Crow rebuffed a request from the Senate finance committee, citing tax concerns, for a list of gifts given to Thomas.An attorney for Crow, Michael Bopp, called the request “a component of a broader campaign against Justice Thomas and, now, Mr Crow, rather than an investigation that furthers a valid legislative purpose”.Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee sent Crow a similar letter.In his letter to Thomas, Bookbinder said: “It has become clear that over the last several decades you have engaged in a longstanding pattern of conduct to accept and conceal gifts and other benefits received from … a billionaire political activist, and have disregarded your ethical duty to recuse yourself from cases in which you have a personal or financial conflict of interest.”Crow insists he is simply good friends with Clarence and Ginni Thomas, with whom he refrains from discussing politics or business before the court.But outlets including the Guardian have shown that groups linked to Crow – a collector of historical memorabilia including paintings by Hitler – have had business before the court during the period of his friendship with Thomas.Bookbinder said reports about Thomas were “contributing to a catastrophic decline in public confidence that threatens to undermine the entire federal judiciary”.Public polling shows confidence in the court at historic lows.In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned from the supreme court, in part for accepting payment for outside activity. Fortas was paid $15,000 to teach summer school and took $20,000 from a foundation run by a convicted fraudster.Bookbinder told Thomas: “We know of no other modern justice who has engaged in such extreme misconduct.“Indeed, your receipt of consistent, lavish gifts and favors from a billionaire with an interest in the direction of the court is so far outside the experience of most of the American people, and so far beyond what most would consider acceptable, that it cannot help but further diminish the court’s credibility.”He also charged Thomas with failing to recuse himself from cases involving his wife’s “personal or financial interests”, notably after the 2020 election, in a case regarding whether to release documents related to Donald Trump’s attempt to stay in power.Thomas was the sole justice to say the documents should not be released. When they were, they showed Ginni Thomas’s extensive involvement in Trump’s election subversion.Bookbinder said: “It is increasingly difficult for people to trust that you are making decisions only based on the law and a commitment to justice.“… The judiciary is built entirely upon a foundation of public trust. If that falls away, the institution will fail. While we appreciate your many years of public service, your conduct has left you with only one way to continue faithfully serving our democracy.“For the sake of our judiciary and the sake of people’s faith in its legitimacy, you must resign.” More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrat urges Justice Roberts to act over Clarence Thomas’s ‘tangled web’

      by

      US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas’s ties to conservative political figures is an American embarrassment, and the question is whether that is shameful enough to the country’s highest-ranking judge to do something about it, the Senate judiciary committee’s chairperson said on Sunday.“This tangled web around justice … Thomas just gets worse and worse by the day,” Illinois’s senior Democratic senator, Dick Durbin, said on CNN’s State of the Union. “I don’t know what is going to come up next. I thought I heard it all, but disclosures about his activities just embarrass me.”Durbin, who is also the majority whip in the upper congressional chamber, added: “The question is whether it embarrasses the supreme court and … chief justice [John] Roberts, [who] has the power in his hands to change this first thing tomorrow morning.”In an interview with host Jake Tapper, the four-term senator called on Roberts to implement a supreme court code of conduct “that finally means something” and requires its nine justices to subject themselves “to at least the minimal standards that apply to all other federal judges”.“This is the Roberts court,” Durbin said. “History is going to judge him by the decision he makes on this. He has the power to make the difference.”Durbin’s remarks taking aim at Thomas and Roberts come after days of controversy surrounding the relationships between some high court justices and people with business before their bench.On Thursday, ProPublica reported that Republican mega-donor Harlan Crow paid for the great-nephew of Thomas – whom the conservative justice raised as a son – to attend a private boarding school. Crow had also provided Thomas luxury travel and resort stays. And he had bought from Thomas a home where the justice’s mother still lives.Thomas did not declare any of that before siding with the supreme court’s conservative majority in major rulings, including one last year that removed the federal right to an abortion. The Guardian has also reported that Crow had business before the supreme court during his deep friendship with Thomas.Also on Thursday, the Washington Post published an investigation which found that rightwing legal activist Leonard Leo arranged for Thomas’s wife, conservative activist Ginni Thomas, to receive tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work between 2011 and 2012. Leo made it a point for Ginni Thomas’s name to be omitted from pertinent billing paperwork, and an organization which he leads has repeatedly submitted briefs that outside groups use to share insights with supreme court justices, according to the Post.Meanwhile, last month, Politico reported that Thomas’s fellow conservative justice Neil Gorsuch pocketed up to $500,000 from a property sale shortly after joining the supreme court but did not disclose that the buyer led a law firm with business before the high court.Thomas has said he was advised that he didn’t have to declare such gifts but pledged to begin following ethics guidelines. Gorsuch has not commented.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSome have argued that such disclosures about the relationships between supreme court justices and certain parties amount to exposed corruption. Durbin recently invited Roberts to appear in his role as supreme court chief justice before the Senate judiciary committee to address the reporting on Thomas and Gorsuch.But Roberts declined and instead simply forwarded “a statement of ethics and principles and practice to which all current members of the supreme court subscribe”.Durbin countered in a letter that the statement Roberts sent over “raises more questions than it resolves”.The senator told Tapper on Sunday that everything about the revelations around Thomas and Gorsuch as well as Roberts’s reaction “stinks”.Seemingly alluding to recent polling which showed that public confidence in the supreme court has plummeted to historic lows, Durbin said: “You shouldn’t have that sort of thing happening at the highest court in America. It just destroys the integrity of the court.” More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Clarence Thomas scandal deepens with report of rightwing activist’s secret payments to wife – as it happened

      by

      From 7h agoRightwing judicial activist Leonard Leo made secret payments to Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, ten years ago and emphasized “No mention of Ginni” on the documents, according to a new Washington Post investigation.In January 2012, Leo directed GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill the Judicial Education Project, a non-profit group he advises. He then ordered that money be used to pay Ginni Thomas, telling Conway that he wanted to “give” Thomas “another 25k”.“No mention of Ginni, of course,” Leo told Conway, who later became a senior adviser to Donald Trump, the Post reports. The subsequent bill sent to the JEP by Conway’s firm, the Polling Company, titled the purpose as “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting”, according to documents reviewed by the Post.Later that year, the JEP filed an amicus brief in a case that challenged a civil rights law that sought to protect minority voters. In a 5-to-4 majority which Clarence Thomas was part of, the supreme court stripped away a formula in the Voting Rights Act that determined which states had to get federal permission before altering their voting rules and procedures.Following the Post’s revelations about the secret payments, Leo defended himself, telling the outlet:
      “It is no secret that Ginni Thomas has a long history of working on issues within the conservative movement, and part of that work has involved gauging public attitudes and sentiment. The work she did here did not involve anything connected with either the Court’s business or with other legal issues…
      As an advisor to JEP I have long been supportive of its opinion research relating to limited government, and The Polling Company, along with Ginni Thomas’s help, has been an invaluable resource for gauging public attitudes…
      Knowing how disrespectful, malicious and gossipy people can be, I have always tried to protect the privacy of Justice Thomas and Ginni.”
      The investigation comes amid a handful of reports in recent weeks surrounding Clarence Thomas, who received luxury gifts, travel and tuition payments from the GOP billionaire donor Harlan Crow without publicly disclosing them. He has since faced a slew of impeachment calls.In response to the reports, Democrats have been calling for investigations into Clarence Thomas and for tighter ethics standards for the supreme court justices, which Republicans have condemned as an “assault … well beyond ethics … [and] about trying to delegitimize a conservative court”.Meanwhile Leo himself has been accused of illegally misusing $73m from non-profit groups and diverting money to his businesses, according to a complaint from the non-profit watchdog organization, Campaign for Accountability.It’s slightly past 4pm in Washington DC. Here’s a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
      Rightwing judicial activist Leonard Leo made secret payments to Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, ten years ago and emphasized “No mention of Ginni” on the documents, according to a new Washington Post investigation. The investigation comes amid a handful of reports in recent weeks surrounding Clarence Thomas, who received luxury gifts, travel and tuition payments from the GOP billionaire donor Harlan Crow without publicly disclosing them. He has since faced a slew of impeachment calls.
      Kellyanne Conway has pushed back against the recent Washington Post investigation into Ginni Thomas, saying: “These people will stop at nothing,” referring to the slew of ethics advocates, protestors and Democratic lawmakers who have called for investigations into Clarence Thomas and his impeachment. “They want Clarence Thomas to resign. So Joe Biden, of all people, can replace him with one of his own,” Conway said.
      Lawmakers in North Carolina have passed a 12-week abortion ban, a change from the current 20-week ban in response to the supreme court’s overturn of Roe v Wade last year. The vote, which came on Thursday as a 29-20 party-line vote, was met with opposition from about 100 observers who watched the debate in the state senate, the Associated Press reports. The Democratic governor Roy Cooper has vowed to veto the bill.
      The Democratic senator and member of the senate judiciary committee Peter Welch has condemned the secret payments made to Ginni Thomas, calling it a “coverup” and “evasion”. Speaking to MSNBC on Friday, Welch said: “I use the word ‘deceit’. I used the word ‘coverup’. I’d use the word ‘evasion’ … it’s clear that Leonard Leo knew that if this saw the light of day, it would cause controversy. And the bottom line here is that the court is getting itself in this amount of trouble and that’s bad for our democracy.”
      Speaking to reporters on Friday, president Joe Biden accused Maga Republicans of trying to hold the debt “hostage to get us to agree to some draconian cuts”. “Whether you pay the debt or not doesn’t have a damn thing to do with what your budget is … let’s get it straight. They’re trying to hold the debt hostage to get us to agree to some draconian cuts, magnificently difficult, damaging cuts,” said Biden.
      Rochelle Walensky, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says she is resigning effective 30 June. Walensky’s announcement comes as the World Health Organization today declared that the Covid-19 virus is no longer a global health emergency.
      The court in New York has released some material from defendant Donald Trump’s pre-trial deposition – the session in which he mistook plaintiff Carroll for his second wife, Marla Marples, despite saying the writer was “not his type”. And he says the picture was “very blurry”. It clearly shows Carroll. Trump is depicted next to his first wife, Ivana Trump. Trump points to a photograph he’s been shown and says: “It’s Marla, yeah, that’s my wife.”
      President Joe Biden has chosen Neera Tanden, the current White House staff secretary and senior adviser, to be his new domestic policy adviser, the Associated Press reports. Tanden, who has 25 years of experience of public policy, will be the first Asian American to lead any of the three major White House policy operations, he said. She will succeed Susan Rice who was previously a foreign policy expert.
      An investigation by ProPublica has found that South Carolina’s Democrat representative James Clyburn sought GOP assistance in protecting his district at a cost to Black Democrats. “Facing the possibility of an unsafe district, South Carolina’s most powerful Democrat sent his aide to consult with the GOP on a redistricting plan that diluted Black voting strength and harmed his party’s chances of gaining seats in Congress,” the outlet reported.
      The former North Carolina representative Madison Cawthorn has been fined $250 after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor following the discovery of a loaded gun in his carry-on luggage at Charlotte airport last year. According to the Associated Press, a judge in Mecklenburg county court where the hearing took place allowed Cawthorn to keep the 9mm gun, which Transportation Security Administration seized last year.
      That’s it from me, Maya Yang, as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.The former North Carolina representative Madison Cawthorn has been fined $250 after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor following the discovery of a loaded gun in his carry-on luggage at Charlotte airport last year.According to the Associated Press, a judge in Mecklenburg county court where the hearing took place allowed Cawthorn to keep the 9mm gun, which Transportation Security Administration seized last year.“I’m very happy and thankful that the judge gave a really clear ruling that sides with the law,” Cawthorn told reporters after the hearing, the Associated Press reports.In 2021, Cawthorn was found with an unloaded gun while trying to board a plane at Asheville Regional Airport. Cawthorn was eventually allowed to board but had his gun confiscated.Cawthorn served one term in Congress after winning the election at age 25, which made him one of the youngest members in Congress at the time. Cawthorn, a Trump supporter, lost the 2022 GOP primary to Chuck Edwards.“How Rep. James Clyburn Protected His District at a Cost to Black Democrats” is the alarming ProPublica headline.Here’s the investigative website’s standfirst to go with their scoop: “Facing the possibility of an unsafe district, South Carolina’s most powerful Democrat sent his aide to consult with the GOP on a redistricting plan that diluted Black voting strength and harmed his party’s chances of gaining seats in Congress.”According to ProPublica, a Clyburn spokesperson acknowledged that the office “engaged in discussions regarding the boundaries of the 6th Congressional District by responding to inquiries” but did not reveal the extent of Clyburn’s role.“Any accusation that Congressman Clyburn in any way enabled or facilitated Republican gerrymandering that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred is fanciful,” Clyburn’s office said in a statement to the outlet.President Joe Biden has chosen Neera Tanden, the current White House staff secretary and senior adviser, to be his new domestic policy adviser, the Associated Press reports.Tanden, who has 25 years of experience of public policy, will be the first Asian American to lead any of the three major White House policy operations, he said. She will succeed Susan Rice who was previously a foreign policy expert.“As Senior Advisor and Staff Secretary, Neera oversaw decision-making processes across my domestic, economic and national security teams. She has 25 years of experience in public policy, has served three Presidents, and led one of the largest think tanks in the country for nearly a decade,” Biden said in a statement.“She was a key architect of the Affordable Care Act and helped drive key domestic policies that became part of my agenda, including clean energy subsidies and sensible gun reform. While growing up, Neera relied on some of the critical programs that she will oversee as Domestic Policy Advisor, and I know those insights will serve my Administration and the American people well,” he added.The jury in the civil trial, where writer E Jean Carroll accuses Donald Trump of raping her and then defaming her by calling her a liar, is not sitting today, but there is still some news.The court in New York has released some material from defendant Trump’s pre-trial deposition – the session in which he mistook plaintiff Carroll for his second wife, Marla Marples, despite saying the writer was “not his type”.And he says the picture was “very blurry”. It clearly shows Carroll. Trump is depicted next to his first wife, Ivana Trump.Trump points to a photograph he’s been shown and says: “It’s Marla, yeah, that’s my wife.”He’s then told it’s actually Carroll. He responds, apparently nonchalantly: “I assume that’s Carroll, because it’s very blurry.”Carroll, second from left, laughing, does not appear blurry in this image.Hello again, US politics live blog readers, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have gone for tacos (truly) and the US supreme court’s right wing is once again in trouble. It’s a lively Friday, so stay with us.Here’s where things stand:
      Rochelle Walensky, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), says she is resigning effective 30 June.
      Joe Biden accused Maga Republicans of trying to hold the debt ceiling negotiations “hostage to get us to agree to some draconian cuts”.
      Lawmakers in North Carolina passed a 12-week abortion ban, a change from the current 20-week ban in response to the supreme court’s overturn of Roe v Wade last year.
      Rightwing judicial activist Leonard Leo made secret payments to US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, 10 years ago and emphasized “No mention of Ginni” on the documents, according to a new Washington Post investigation.
      There was some confusion late morning, as Joe Biden, during his remarks about jobs figures and the economy, said he’d be holding an important press conference this afternoon (that reporters did not know about.). Turns out that’s not the case, the White House soon clarified. Meanwhile, Potus and Veep (Kamala Harris), unannounced, went out in town for some 5 May tacos together.
      Rochelle Walensky, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, says she is resigning effective 30 June.Walensky’s announcement comes as the World Health Organization today declared that the Covid-19 virus is no longer a global health emergency.President Joe Biden praised Walensky’s leadership at the CDC, saying:
      “Dr. Walensky has saved lives with her steadfast and unwavering focus on the health of every American. As Director of the CDC, she led a complex organization on the frontlines of a once-in-a-generation pandemic with honesty and integrity. She marshalled our finest scientists and public health experts to turn the tide on the urgent crises we’ve faced.Dr. Walensky leaves CDC a stronger institution, better positioned to confront health threats and protect Americans. We have all benefited from her service and dedication to public health, and I wish her the best in her next chapter.”
      Speaking to reporters on Friday, president Joe Biden accused Maga Republicans of trying to hold the debt “hostage to get us to agree to some draconian cuts”.
      “Whether you pay the debt or not doesn’t have a damn thing to do with what your budget is … let’s get it straight. They’re trying to hold the debt hostage to get us to agree to some draconian cuts, magnificently difficult, damaging cuts,” said Biden.
      “My predecessor, in the four years he was president, increased that total debt by 40%,” Biden said, adding: “Let’s be clear, this is no small part about paying our bills that we’ve accumulated, not by me, not by my administration, but by former presidents and previous Congresses … We’re not a deadbeat nation. We pay our bills.”
      The Democratic senator and member of the senate judiciary committee Peter Welch has condemned the secret payments made to Ginni Thomas, calling it a “coverup” and “evasion”.Speaking to MSNBC on Friday, Welch said:
      “I use the word ‘deceit’. I used the word ‘coverup’. I’d use the word ‘evasion’ … it’s clear that Leonard Leo knew that if this saw the light of day, it would cause controversy. And the bottom line here is that the court is getting itself in this amount of trouble and that’s bad for our democracy …
      Whatever the relationship is with Thomas and his benefactor, it’s a pretty shocking thing to be getting vacations on yachts in Greece, in New Zealand, to be flying on private chats and have that not be known. And obviously the whole Federalist Society relationship is something that’s extraordinarily important. It’s been very discouraging.”
      He went on to explain the extent that the Federalist Society has over the nomination process of supreme court justices, saying:
      “When these nominees are put forward, the judiciary committee is an afterthought. The Federalist Society is the interview that really matters for those folks to get the … approval on the Republican side. And that has been a long term concerted, unfortunately, effective effort by Leonard Leo.
      We have to have a supreme court in this country that people respect … Anything that any one of those justices does that erodes the confidence that our people are all entitled to …is wrong.”
      Lawmakers in North Carolina have passed a 12-week abortion ban, a change from the current 20-week ban in response to the supreme court’s overturn of Roe v Wade last year.The vote, which came on Thursday as a 29-20 party-line vote, was met with opposition from about 100 observers who watched the debate in the state senate, the Associated Press reports.“Abortion rights now!” some observers shouted while others yelled: “Shame!” The state House passed the bill on Wednesday evening on a similar party-line vote.Meanwhile, the Republican state senator Joyce Krawiec hailed the bill on Thursday, saying: “Many of us who have worked for decades to save unborn babies for the sanctity of human life, we saw it as an opportunity to put forth a very pro-life, pro-woman legislation.”“This is a pro-life plan, not an abortion plan,” she said.The Democratic state senator Sydney Batch pushed back against the bill, saying, “This bill is an extreme and oppressive step backwards for our society and one that will deny women the right to make decisions about their own health care and future.”Democratic governor Roy Cooper has vowed to veto the bill, saying it is an “egregious, unacceptable attack on the women of our state”.The bill also includes additional medical and paperwork requirements for patients and physicians, as well as increased licensing requirements for abortion clinics that would make the procedure more difficult to attain.Meanwhile, across the state are growing fears as Mark Robinson, an extreme Republican who once labeled the transgender movement “demonic” and called Muslims “invaders”, runs for the governor’s office.“We have bills right now going through our general assembly to ban gender-affirming care for trans youth. We have a ban against trans athletes or young people competing in sports right now. We have a lot of discriminatory, just persecuting our own citizens-type of legislation happening in our state,” Anderson Clayton, chair of the state’s Democratic party, told the Guardian.“And Mark Robinson is only going to be the person who’s going to make that worse.”Kellyanne Conway has pushed back against the recent Washington Post investigation into Ginni Thomas, saying: “These people will stop at nothing,” referring to the slew of ethics advocates, protestors and Democratic lawmakers who have called for investigations into Clarence Thomas and his impeachment.Speaking to Fox News on Friday, Conway said:
      “These people will stop at nothing. They want Clarence Thomas to resign. So Joe Biden, of all people, can replace him with one of his own …
      Ginni Thomas was one of my contractors and she had worked with the Heritage Foundation, she … is part of the grassroots. She had worked in the Reagan administration. This is a serious person who for years had worked in public policy At the Polling Company, we did public opinion research and data analytics. We had no business before the court.”
      Rightwing judicial activist Leonard Leo made secret payments to Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, ten years ago and emphasized “No mention of Ginni” on the documents, according to a new Washington Post investigation.In January 2012, Leo directed GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway to bill the Judicial Education Project, a non-profit group he advises. He then ordered that money be used to pay Ginni Thomas, telling Conway that he wanted to “give” Thomas “another 25k”.“No mention of Ginni, of course,” Leo told Conway, who later became a senior adviser to Donald Trump, the Post reports. The subsequent bill sent to the JEP by Conway’s firm, the Polling Company, titled the purpose as “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting”, according to documents reviewed by the Post.Later that year, the JEP filed an amicus brief in a case that challenged a civil rights law that sought to protect minority voters. In a 5-to-4 majority which Clarence Thomas was part of, the supreme court stripped away a formula in the Voting Rights Act that determined which states had to get federal permission before altering their voting rules and procedures.Following the Post’s revelations about the secret payments, Leo defended himself, telling the outlet:
      “It is no secret that Ginni Thomas has a long history of working on issues within the conservative movement, and part of that work has involved gauging public attitudes and sentiment. The work she did here did not involve anything connected with either the Court’s business or with other legal issues…
      As an advisor to JEP I have long been supportive of its opinion research relating to limited government, and The Polling Company, along with Ginni Thomas’s help, has been an invaluable resource for gauging public attitudes…
      Knowing how disrespectful, malicious and gossipy people can be, I have always tried to protect the privacy of Justice Thomas and Ginni.”
      The investigation comes amid a handful of reports in recent weeks surrounding Clarence Thomas, who received luxury gifts, travel and tuition payments from the GOP billionaire donor Harlan Crow without publicly disclosing them. He has since faced a slew of impeachment calls.In response to the reports, Democrats have been calling for investigations into Clarence Thomas and for tighter ethics standards for the supreme court justices, which Republicans have condemned as an “assault … well beyond ethics … [and] about trying to delegitimize a conservative court”.Meanwhile Leo himself has been accused of illegally misusing $73m from non-profit groups and diverting money to his businesses, according to a complaint from the non-profit watchdog organization, Campaign for Accountability.Good morning, US politics readers. A prominent conservative judicial activist arranged for Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, to be paid tens of thousands of dollars for consulting work over ten years ago and emphasized “no mention of Ginni” on the payments, according to a new report.An investigation by the Washington Post revealed that Leonard Leo, a leader of the Federalist Society who led campaigns to support the nominations of a handful of conservative supreme court justices, directed GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway in 2012 to bill the Judicial Education Project, a non-profit Leo advises.Leo then told Conway, a former advisor to Donald Trump, that he wanted to “give” Ginni Thomas “another $25k”, according to documents reviewed by the Post. “No mention of Ginni, of course,” Leo emphasized.The $25,000 bill Conway sent to the Judicial Education Project listed the purpose as “Supplement for Constitution Polling and Opinion Consulting” the Post reports.The investigation comes amid a handful of reports in recent weeks surrounding Clarence Thomas, who received luxury gifts, travel and tuition payments from the GOP billionaire donor Harlan Crow without publicly disclosing them.Here are other developments in US politics:
      North Carolina lawmakers have passed a 12-week abortion ban, which Democratic governor Roy Cooper promised to veto.
      New York mayor Eric Adams and police are facing increasing criticism from protestors for a lack of action over 30-year-old Jordan Neely’s death.
      Senate Democrats are criticizing House Republicans’ proposal to raise the government’s borrowing limit in exchange for spending cuts. More