SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
u s supreme court
New Revelations Show Just How Corrupt the Supreme Court Really Is
Call me naïve. At the beginning of this year, I felt confident in asserting that the court was a conservative court, a Federalist Society court, even a Republican court—but not a MAGA court.
Sep 18, 2024
Last spring, Justice Samuel Alito had drafted an opinion dropping federal charges against many of the January 6 insurrectionists who violently stormed the Capitol. The ruling in Fischer v. United States had not yet been released. Then The New York Times published a startling story: Alito himself had flown the flag of insurrection at his home. (He briefly blamed it on his wife: “She is fond of flying flags.”) Days later, it was reported that he had flown such flags at his vacation home as well.
Awkward! Grounds for recusal? Time to rethink the ruling? Nah. Instead, Chief Justice John Roberts quietly took Alito’s embarrassing name off the opinion and slipped his own name onto it instead.
That is just one of the gobsmacking revelations from a story by Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak that appeared in The New York Times last weekend. The lurid news of the day quickly overwhelmed it—the gunman arrested outside Donald Trump’s golf course, the continued smear campaign by former President Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) against the Haitian immigrant community in a small city in Ohio, and more.
Throughout American history, overreach by the Supreme Court has provoked a response.
But we must not let these revelations fade from view. They paint a damning and indelible picture of how John Roberts, for all his vaunted “institutionalism” and piety about calling “balls and strikes,” steered the court to shield Trump from accountability for his misdeeds.
Call me naïve. At the beginning of this year, I thought I had few illusions about the court. I had just published a harshly critical book, The Supermajority. But I felt confident in asserting that the court was a conservative court, a Federalist Society court, even a Republican court—but not a MAGA court. It had not yet shown an appetite for excusing Trump from the reach of the law.
So I, along with most legal observers, assumed that the justices would let Trump’s trial proceed. I thought there was a good chance it would be unanimous, that Roberts would work behind the scenes to ensure that the court spoke with one voice on major issues of presidential power and constitutional law. That’s what other chief justices did, most notably Warren Burger in United States v. Nixon, the Watergate tapes case and the closest analogue to the Trump trial ruling.
After all, we all thought, Trump v. United States was legally easy. Indeed, the possibility of criminal charges was the stated reason why Republican senators did not vote to convict him of the January 6 charges in Trump’s second impeachment trial.
Many of us, too, sensed there was a deal afoot—a unanimous ruling that Trump could not be thrown off the ballot by one state under the 14th Amendment and a principled ruling on the criminal trial.
Behind the velvet curtain of the court, though, there was no deal. Roberts wrote a memo in February—before the court had even announced that it would hear Trump’s appeal—declaring that the court would give the former president a huge win. “I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently” from the appeals court, he wrote. As Kantor and Liptak summarized, “In other words: grant Mr. Trump greater protection from prosecution.”
They detailed myriad other ways that Roberts steered rulings Trump’s way. He froze out Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The ruling was sloppy and immunized vast areas of potential presidential wrongdoing. The Times noted that NYU Law professor Trevor Morrison had discovered that Roberts selectively edited a quote from a key earlier ruling to help Trump.
The resulting ruling tells future presidents that they can break the law, plainly and flagrantly. As long as they conspire with other government officials, it will be effectively immunized. (Order your White House counsel to pay hush money, as Richard Nixon did, not your campaign manager, and you’ll be off the hook.)
The opinion has widely and correctly been scorned as one of the worst in American history—a rip in the constitutional fabric. The Times’ tick-tock makes clear that this was not a baffling anomaly. Rather, it is the biggest, most visible, and perhaps most consequential in a series of actions taken by a corrupted court. It follows Citizens United, Shelby County, and other rulings that systematically undid key democratic protections.
Throughout American history, overreach by the Supreme Court has provoked a response. Dred Scott did in the 1850s—it helped lead to a civil war. Reactionary rulings such as Lochner did in the early 20th century. Trump v. United States should join with the Dobbs abortion rights ruling to spur a similar backlash today.
We’ve argued for an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices, because nobody should have too much public power for too long. And we’ve urged a binding code of ethics, which would have forced Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas to step out of these key cases. These reforms are widely popular. Most recently, a Fox News poll this summer found that 78% support term limits.
The court is a broken institution. It’s time to fix it. The latest revelations remind us that otherwise, the fix is in.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Juliana Plaintiffs Urge Supreme Court to Reverse Trump Judges' Dismissal of Key Climate Case
"This case is about addressing the climate crisis and protecting our fundamental rights like our right to life and freedom. However, it is also about ensuring access to justice," said one plaintiff.
Sep 12, 2024
Demanding that the U.S. Supreme Court correct "an egregious error" by the Trump-appointed judges who dismissed their landmark case in May, the 21 plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States on Thursday filed a petition asking the high court to take action that would require the lower judicial panel to "follow the rule of law and precedent."
The petition was announced by Our Children's Trust, the legal group that has represented the Juliana plaintiffs for nearly a decade since they filed their lawsuit asserting that the government's support for fossil fuel extraction and other actions have "violated the youngest generation's constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property, as well as failed to protect essential public trust resources."
The group asked the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus—a legal tool which can be used to "confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of prescribed jurisdiction, or when there is an usurpation of judicial power," according to the Department of Justice.
The maneuver is the same one that was used repeatedly by the DOJ under three different presidents since Juliana was first filed in 2015, with the Biden administration successfully dismissing the case this year.
By adhering to the DOJ's writ of mandamus and blocking a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken, who late last year had decided in favor of giving the plaintiffs a court trial, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel "did not follow the rule of law and precedent, and flagrantly disregarded the limits Congress and the Supreme Court placed on its jurisdiction," said Our Children's Trust on Thursday.
"Today, I'm asking the Supreme Court to correct the 9th Circuit's abuse of the rules meant to protect our ability as young citizens to bring cases against our government. The rule of law and our constitutional democracy depend on it," said one plaintiff named Avery. "If you care about justice, fundamental rights, and the preservation of our democracy, you care about Juliana. This case is about addressing the climate crisis and protecting our fundamental rights like our right to life and freedom. However, it is also about ensuring access to justice. I urge the Supreme Court to make a decision that will make their children, grandchildren, and all future generations proud. Let us go to trial."
Our Children's Trust noted that the panel of judges appointed by former Republican President Donald Trump attempted to "obscure" their ruling in May "by issuing a brief, unpublished order."
"Such actions undermine the integrity of the judiciary and threaten the fairness of the legal process for citizen litigants who are not wielding the power of the federal government's resources," the group said.
The 9th Circuit ruling also disregarded the Supreme Court's mandatory conditions for a writ of mandamus, which can only be granted if there is no other way to get relief from a "significant harm" caused by a lower court and if the right to relief is "clear and indisputable."
"The DOJ's petition did not even address or come close to meeting these criteria," said Our Children's Trust.
The group noted that the federal government's efforts to block a case in which young people are claiming the right to be protected from planetary heating and from diseases and premature death caused by pollution from fossil fuel infrastructure have gone on so long that the case's youngest plaintiff, who was eight when Juliana was filed, "can now drive and has spent more than half his life as a plaintiff waiting for trial in the face of the most aggressive litigation tactics ever to come out of the Department of Justice."
In federal civil cases that go to trial, a trial begins an average of 27 months from the case's first filing. Juliana was filed 109 months ago.
The writ of mandamus petition is necessary to correct the 9th Circuit's "overreach," said chief legal counsel Julia Olson. "Upholding these principles of fair process is vital for maintaining trust in our judicial system, regardless of what the justices may think about the merits of the case."
The petition was filed a day after Our Children's Trust sent a letter to the Biden administration asking officials to engage in meaningful settlement talks. Nearly 350,000 people signed petitions asking the administration to meet the demand, and the signatures were delivered Wednesday by 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben and Jerome Foster II, the youngest ever White House environmental justice adviser.
"Our ability to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live free from the pollution harming our planet and our children are fundamental freedoms we risk losing," said McKibben, calling on the Biden administration to take the opportunity "to show [its] commitment to climate action, to youth, and to the future!"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Own Words Define His Delusionary State of Mind
"Trump is too unstable, too unreliable, too dangerous—especially to exercise lawfully the enormous power held by a president of the U.S."
Sep 07, 2024
Even if I have to say so as co-author with Mark Green of “WRECKING AMERICA: How Trump’s Lawbreaking and Lies Betray All,” I know of no book on Trump to be as practically useful for the 2024 presidential election. Useful, that is, for those Americans who are appalled at how this egomaniacal delusionary man has gotten tens of millions of voters wanting him back in the White House.
The fervent Trumpsters may believe all politicians are delusionary. Trump, however, is proudly open about his assertions proving it. He is a bombastic blowhard who rants and raves in all directions.
Trump is too unstable, too unreliable, too dangerous—especially to exercise lawfully the enormous power held by a President of the U.S.
In our book, we assembled Trump’s own words to define his “delusionary” state of mind. He made these boasts without a smile and in all seriousness:
“Nobody knows more about taxes than I do, and income than I do.”
“Nobody knows more about construction than I do.”
“Nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do.”
“I know more about drones than anybody.”
“Nobody knows much more about technology … than I do.”
“Nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump.”
“I know that H-1B [visa], I know the H-2B. Nobody knows it better than me.”
“I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me.”
“Nobody knows more about environmental impact statements than me.”
“I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody.”
“I know more about renewables than any human being on earth.”
“Nobody knows more about polls than me.”
“I know more about courts than any human being on earth.”
“I know more about steelworkers than anybody that’s ever run for office.”
“Nobody knows more about banks than I do.”
“Nobody knows more about trade than me.”
“I know more about nuclear weapons than he’ll ever know.”
“I understand the tax laws better than almost anyone.”
“I know more about offense and defense than they will ever understand.”
“Nobody even understands it but me. It’s called devaluation.”
“I understand money better than anybody.”
“I understand the system better than anybody.”
“Nobody knows more about debt than I do.”
“Nobody knows the game better than me.”
“And who knows more about the word ‘apprentice’ than Donald Trump?”
“I understand politicians better than anybody.”
“Who knows the other side better than me?”
“I was the fair-haired boy. Nobody knows more about it than me.”
“I know a lot. I know more than I’m ever gonna tell you.”
For a mass media that concentrates so heavily on the politics of personalismo, it is remarkable that journalists have not more forcefully taken account of this braggadocio on steroids. Imagine any other candidate – Democratic or Republican – bellowing two or three such grandiosities without being taken to task. This is what happens when politicians like Reagan and Trump succeed in constantly lowering the bar of expectations by the reporters. Trump gets away with saying things for which other candidates would be excoriated or harshly ridiculed.
“WRECKING AMERICA” is replete with clearly written narratives on what damage Trump and his administration did to many aspects of life, laws, social norms, justice, health, safety, trust and truth in our country. During his business and political careers, he has gotten away with serial lawlessness. He bragged publicly in 2019: “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” And he proved this dictatorial license regularly.
Last June by a vote of 6 to 3 the U.S. Supreme Court went very far in saying that Trump could do what he wants to do, should the Electoral College select him again as President in November.
On page 251 we devoted a few pages to speaking to wannabe Trump voters, elaborating how they and anti-Trump voters suffer the same under the impact of Trumpist policies and practices. That is if you are not part of either the Plutocracy and the Oligarchy.
Such hubris or arrogance is not just rhetoric. It led directly to him saying about Covid that “It’s going to disappear. One day, it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” Trump also suggested that using a “powerful light” might be used to fight Covid.
He even wanted to explore injecting a disinfectant. The Michigan Poison Center reported, “Popular disinfectant companies like The Clorox Company and Reckitt Benckiser, the parent company of both Lysol and Dettol, quickly released statements emphasizing that their products should not be consumed. Despite warnings from healthcare providers and other officials, [some] people acted on Trump’s advice and ingested chemicals, including bleach, across the country. In at least five states, poison centers reported they had an increase in calls within 18 hours of Trump’s broadcasted stupidity.”
This “know-it-all” delayed mobilizing the Executive Branch for weeks and his actions caused tens of thousands of Covid-related deaths.
Moreover, through Trump’s own carelessness, he exposed himself and White House aides to Covid, sending him to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. Tragically, before he left the White House in January 2021, 400,000 people died from Covid.
Trump’s delusional campaign promises know no bounds. In his first run for the presidency, The Guardian newspaper reported Trump’s “Promises to save US manufacturing and prevent American jobs moving abroad were a key part of Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. But since Trump took office in January 2017, nearly 200,000 jobs have been moved overseas, based on Trade Adjustment Assistance certified petitions.”
Trump also promised clean air and water. But he pushed to weaken the Clean Air Act and clean water protections. Making empty promises is nothing new for Donald Trump. Expect more of the same between now and election day.
Presently, assailing Kamala Harris, Trump is going off the rails into very vulgar territory where no presidential candidate has ever dared to dwell. His advisors are frantic, trying to have him read their talking points and wondering how they are going to focus erratic Donald during his September 10th ABC network debate with Harris.
They are unlikely to succeed. Trump will sweep aside most reporters’ questions and launch into the same diatribes, falsehoods and bloated assurances to fix everything immediately which he repeatedly delivers at his rallies.
His delusions by definition are here to stay.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular