The Supreme Court Must Be Stopped, by Elie Mystal

[admin]

AOC’s Move on Thomas and Alito Has All the Right Historical Echoes: Ocasio-Cortez’s articles of impeachment against the rogue justices probably won’t remove them. But history suggests it might help tame the court in other ways.
by Thom Hartmann
July 12, 2024

Article 3 of the Constitution, which defines the roles and powers of the court system, says: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is taking the Framers at their word; this week, she introduced articles of impeachment against both Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

While the Republicans on this court have engaged in a decades-long steady torrent of corruption—from Chief Justice John Roberts’s wife making over $10 million hustling lawyers into law firms that practice before the court to Clarence Thomas’s million-dollar vacations and mother’s rent-free life, Samuel Alito’s paid speeches and luxury vacations with billionaires, Neil Gorsuch’s and Amy Coney Barrett’s fealty to the fossil fuel industry that his mother and her father served, and finally to Brett Kavanaugh’s alleged gambling debts—Congress has so far overlooked its obligation to, as Article 3, Section 2 says, “regulate” the Supreme Court.

AOC’s impeachment resolution calls out the two most egregious examples, Thomas and Alito, for failing to disclose gifts from billionaires with issues before the court. She also nails them both for refusing to recuse themselves from cases where they have obvious conflicts, like Thomas’s wife participating in January 6 and Alito’s flag-waving support of the effort to end our democracy.

Most recently, we’ve just discovered that billionaire-with-interests-before-the-court Harlan Crow even paid for the Thomases to take a luxury, all-expenses-paid trip to Putin’s hometown.

Any other federal judge in America would have been taken off the bench had he or she behaved the way these two have.

Right-wing media is laughing at Ocasio-Cortez, pointing out that since Republicans control both the House Judiciary Committee and the entire House itself, her impeachment resolution won’t even make it out of committee. They shouldn’t be so sure of themselves.

First, there’s a very real possibility—in part because of this court’s extremist rulings, particularly overturning Roe v. Wade—that the House will fall to Democratic hands next January and her effort could have a new, albeit uphill, life.

But second, and more important, it’s possible that her highlighting the corruption of at least two Republicans on the court may cause some of the others—particularly Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh—to become more moderate in their rulings going forward.

The last time the Supreme Court experienced such a crisis of confidence with the American people was in the 1935–1937 era, and the way it resolved is fascinating.

Back then, four of the justices—Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter—were collectively known as the Four Horsemen. They were invariably joined by one of the other justices—most frequently Owen Roberts—to strike down President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s popular New Deal legislation that attempted to address unemployment and poverty.

The Four Horseman claimed to be originalists or “strict constructionists” who somehow could read the Founders’ intent from the Constitution, disregarding the historical reality that the Founders were not even remotely of a single mind.

For 40 years during the preceding Lochner era, the court had struck down dozens of state laws protecting workers, including women and children. During the period between 1897 and 1929, the court was ruling largely with the booming industrialist economy, and its conservative members saw the labor movement as disruptive rather than positive. However, with the onset of the Republican Great Depression, these industrialists lost popular support—but the Supreme Court had not caught up with popular opinion.

In 1935, the court ruled that both the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act were unconstitutional. The rulings gutted a large piece of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.

Shortly before Roosevelt was reelected in 1936, the court went even further and struck down a New York state law that established a minimum wage for women and children, in Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo. The pendulum of popular opinion swung against the court almost overnight.

In 1937, the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act were on their way to the court. Considering how the Four Horsemen had ruled during FDR’s first term, Roosevelt knew that he needed to do something or risk losing both pieces of legislation along with the collapse of his entire New Deal agenda.

With the New Deal on the line, Roosevelt—much like AOC today—went on the attack. On February 5, 1937, just months after his landslide reelection, he announced his plan: He asked Congress for the authority to appoint one new justice for each justice then on the bench over 70 years old.

In 1937, the average life expectancy for men in the United States was only 58 years. The average age of the Supreme Court justices at the time was 71 years old, and six of the justices were 70 or older. A book mocking the court, called The Nine Old Men, “was rapidly moving up the bestseller lists.”

FDR directly called into question the “capacity of the judges themselves” to dispose of the growing number of cases facing federal courts. He came up with a plan that would have immediately given him six appointments to the Supreme Court and up to 44 appointments for federal lower courts. Roosevelt argued that “a constant and systematic addition of younger blood will vitalize the courts.”

On March 9, 1937, Roosevelt told the nation that the court was ruling not just against himself and Congress but against the will of the American people, themselves. “The courts,” Roosevelt boomed, “have cast doubts on the ability of the elected Congress to protect us against catastrophe by meeting squarely our modern social and economic conditions.” Roosevelt’s critics were aghast at his plans. They claimed he was trying the “pack the court” with justices who would simply be his yes-men.

Congress never voted on the plan. It’s unclear whether it would have succeeded, or if a more moderate plan that would have given him only two or three justices might have succeeded. Historians still debate the issue. But the point is that the need for it vanished virtually overnight. It ended with a decision on the minimum wage, a crucial component of the New Deal.

On March 29, 1937, a Washington state minimum-wage law came before the court in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. The law in question was nearly identical to a New York state law that that had come before the court a year earlier. But this time, Justice Roberts abandoned the Four Horsemen to uphold Washington state’s minimum-wage law in a 5–4 decision.

In a series of 5–4 decisions two weeks later, the court upheld the National Labor Relations Act as constitutional. The ruling was astonishing, and Roberts was the justice who’d swung the court to the left. Less than two months later, the court declared that Social Security was constitutional.

Roberts’s about-face in West Coast Hotel was referred to at the time as “the switch in time that saved nine” (the court’s reputation, that is). And it’s possible—although not definitively probable—that we could see a similar dynamic at play today.

As we saw with the two efforts to impeach former President Trump, any effort to remove a high official from office by that route is a long shot. Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached—Samuel Chase in 1805—and he was notoriously corrupt (and often drunk).

But as FDR’s successful effort to take on the Republicans on the court showed, sometimes the very process of highlighting their unpopularity and inappropriate judgment can lead to a positive change. The country owes Representative Ocasio-Cortez a big thanks and an overwhelming reelection this fall.

Thom Hartmann @thom_hartmann
Thom Hartmann is the author of over 30 books. His writings appear daily at The Hartmann Report.

[admin]

Jack Smith quickly delivers REALITY CHECK to Judge Cannon
by Michael Popok
Legal AF Podcast
MeidasTouch
Jul 16, 2024

Superhero Judge Aileen Cannon: Superbitch

The Special Counsel—reminding Judge Cannon that he is actually EMPLOYED BY THE DOJ—just notified her that the Attorney General has authorized his IMMEDIATE APPEAL of her ruling dismissing the Mar a Lago case because it’s DEVIATES from all prior court decisions affirming the validity of the Special Counsel’s office and funding.



Transcript

Michael popok legal AF right on time and

in breaking news Jack Smith special

counsel yes he's the special counsel

properly appointed by the Department of

Justice and by Merrick Garland is

appealing this breathtaking decision by

judge aen Cannon to once and for all rid

herself of the moral Lago case that she

hasn't liked from the moment it was

assigned to her by finding that the

special Council was illegitimate invalid

improperly appointed improperly funded

taking the queue from a bunch of magga

right-wing think tanks who wrote briefs

that she accepted and made arguments in

her courtroom that she accepted even

though they're not parties to the case

and then the final nail in the coffin

for judge Canon is the love letter from

um judge Clarence Thomas in the July

first immunity decision that looked like

it was directed directly to her it might

as well have said dear judge Canon or

dear aen you should challenge the

special prosecutor special counsel

position and dismiss the entire

indictment based on its illegitimacy

Well Jack Smith is not taking it any

longer they've been waiting they've been

chomping at the bit at the special

council's office to get a substantive

ruling out of Judge Canon not one of

these little quarter page paperless

orders that we've reported about at

nauseum here on the mest touch network

but an actual living breathing good

oldfashioned 93 page decision that is

replete with improper analysis it's both

prolix her decision 93 pages and short

on analysis in proper legislative uh

research and and de citations I don't

know how you can be both 93 both heavy

and light at the same time it's just

chalk full of

makee without real substantive proper

analysis and she with the back of her

hand she dispatches and make short work

of the analysis based on the statutes

that actually authorize

pardon

me pardon me the special counsel so Jack

Smith as

expected waiting for this day for two

years to find the third major reversible

error Mistake by judge Cannon and argue

for her reassignment off the case to the

11 circuit has finally spoken

spokesperson for the special council's

office I'll read it read it to you Peter

Carr special counsel Jack Smith's office

quote the dismissal of the case Devi

from the uniform conclusion of all

previous courts to have considered the

issue that the Attorney General is

statutorily authorized to appoint a

special counsel the justice department

has authorized the special counsel to

appeal the Court's order think of those

words

alone just that last sentence is a is a

thumb in the eye back at judge Cannon

judge Cannon spent three pages three

whole pages in her decision starting on

page 24 telling the special counsel so

that he is invalid saying that he's not

an employee of the Department of Justice

that he doesn't have any Authority with

the Department of Justice he's not a

special attorney under the the

Department of Justice he's just a

stranger to the case and uh and in a

very succinct way almost like a high

coup from Jack Smith to aen Cannon he

said the following the justice

department has authorized a special

Council to appeal the Court's orders

because I take my orders because I'm an

employee am funded by the special

counsel that is an ex that is already a

exact response to her analysis this is

what the briefing said on page 24 the

alien Cannon said in her order that

neither of the statutes relied upon by

the Department of Justice of the special

counsel to justify his existence work

those two statutes approved by Congress

are 28 USC section 510 and 515 on 510

let me read you the language of 510 510

says the Attorney General May from time

to time make such Provisions as he

considers appropriate authorizing the

performance by any officer employee or

agency of the Department of Justice of

any function of the Attorney General

what what is the special counsel other

than an employee or agency of the doj uh

being given a function of the Attorney

General there's no doubt that main

Justice the Department of Justice could

have prosecuted Donald Trump but they

did a good thing not a bad thing under

Section 28 USC 510 but this is how

dismissive she is she analyzes that in

one paragraph out of 93 pages on page 24

and she says that no after she says

special Council Smith all as all agree

and as required by the special Council

regulations was selected from outside

the United States government what do

that have do anything he was selected

from outside the United States

government but once elected judge Canon

he became an officer employee or agent

of the doj to fulfill a function of the

Attorney General and then and then she's

so self-satisfied with her analysis that

she ends it after one paragraph in 93

Pages the most fundamental issue in the

case with saying no more discussion

about 510 is necessary because she

declares it so in an imperious way

showing uh false bravado and misplaced

bravado does the same thing about the

other statute authorized by Congress

that allows for the appointment of a

special counsel section

515 here she says and I'm going to read

you to

5:15 little B as we say each attorney

spe specially retained under authority

of the Department of Justice shall be

commissioned as special assistant to the

attorney general or special attorney and

shall take the oath required by law that

all happened here I know she doesn't

like to acknowledge it but the special

counsil was commissioned as a special

assistant to the attorney general or as

a special attorney she says well that

only refers to the US attorneys in each

district no that's not what it says it

rises and Falls based on the express

language the literal language of the

statute um and she then says under

515b as she goes through the analysis on

page 26 and 27 she concludes that he's

not a special attorney because he's

outside of the normal ranking hierarchy

of the Department of Justice I mean this

is utter and complete

nonsense and to remind her of who her

his boss is even though he is quote

unquote special he is not independent

let me repeat that Jack Smith is special

counsel not independent councel yes

there is supervision by Under the

Department of Justice guidelines there

is supervision by the Attorney General

of the actions of the special counsel

and he asks to run the case to give a

big of distance or a wall between main

Justice it doesn't mean he's not

employed it doesn't mean when he gets

his direct deposit every month from the

from somewhere it's not coming from

Meritt Garland's personal bank

account the payment to Jack Smith to pay

him his salary and those of everyone

around him I mean I mean um alien count

was all upset oh we spent $14 million I

mean a third of that is for security

details to protect the special counsel

from Death Threats created by Donald

Trump's rhetoric the rest is the

sprawling investigation in two places

Mara Lago and the Department of Justice

uh case against uh him in DC election

interference and she say oh he spent a

lot of money right and every time the J

brat or uh Jeff or or uh or Pierce or

any of the special counsels working

under Jack Smith get paid if they were

to look at their check their paycheck it

would say it's coming from the

Department of Justice the US Treasury

where does he think the money's coming

from

I mean that that's that's why he said

and the Department of Justice and the

attorney general has authorize me to

appeal your butt that's my own personal

observation on that what kind of night

is it is it a single double a triple I'm

not talking about alcohol I'm talking

about souls outof office micro do THC

gummies in three strengths plus no

hangover out of office gummies come in

1.5 milligram 3 mgram and 6 mgram Doses

and three delicious flavors we love them

for clearing your inbox winding down

after work or listening to your favorite

podcast like legal AF or heading out to

a party raise your gummies not your

glasses this podcast is sponsored by

Soul Soul's new outof office gummies are

perfectly micro doed with hemp derive

THC and CBD to give any day that

chilling on the beach Vibe did you know

you can now buy hemp derived THC product

in all 50 states so how can Soul send

you THC products no matter where in the

US you live because of the 2018 Farm

Bill hemp derived THC is now legal and

accessible Nationwide outof office

gummies gives you that warm fuzzy

euphoric micro do feeling without

sending it to the moon the soul team

suggests you start by eating half to one

gummy then wait 45 minutes to 1 hour to

start feeling the effects micro doses of

tea HC keep me feeling good without the

anxious thoughts and that's not all

Soul's got whether you're looking for a

sleep aid enhanced Focus or pain relief

Soul has all your Wellness needs covered

so give Soul a try head to get soul.com

and use code legal AF for 30% off your

order that's 30% off your order using

Code legal AF one last time getold.com

and code legal AF for 30% off here's

what's going to happen

now because alien Cannon's decision is

such an outlier such a rogue such a uh

uh so outside the mainstream s such

Fringe adoption of theories zombie

theories that have been floating around

the rightwing Maga conservative world

forever anything they could throw up

against the wall if they could just find

a judge to accept it they found a judge

in Alien Cannon but fortunately she's

got bosses at the 11 circuit we know

she's ignoring thank God for that we

know she's ignored her fellow senior

lawyers sorry judges in the southern

district of Florida there's already been

reporting that judge uh Cecilia altonaga

who I know well from when I practice in

Miami who's now the chief judge in the

southern district tried to counsel aen

Canada to step off the case and I think

judge Middlebrooks did the exact same

thing she refused now we know why

because who else was going to make this

decision that she just made to dismiss

an indictment finding that special

council's off is improper after 20 or 30

years of its operation under more than

one president including Donald Trump's

own attorney general Bill bar so

thankfully it's going to the 11 circuit

now the 11 circuit is filled of former

trial judges in Miami and I know some of

them well in Alabama and in Georgia

William prior a Georgia former judge is

the chief judge but there's other lawyer

Jud keep saying lawyers there's other

judges on the 11 circuit that sits in

Atlanta sometimes here's oral argument

in different places in Alabama or in uh

in uh in Florida um um these judges are

waiting I believe for her to have made

this major step and this isn't her

stepping in a bucket this is her

stepping into a crevice and disappearing

into Oblivion because they're going to

reverse her at the 11 circuit the

question is how quickly how quickly is

that briefing schedule going to be

arranged now I'm a member of the 11th

circuit and I'm a member of the southern

district of Florida and I've appeared in

front of many of the judges in the

southern district of Florida just not

alien Cannon although I have been in her

courthouse uh up in Fort Pierce and so I

think what's going to happen is they're

going to set a relatively quick briefing

schedule throughout the month of July

into August and they're going to make it

after oral argument they're going to

make a ruling in August and I think it's

going to be against aen Canon they're

going to order her to reopen the case

and they may even reassign it because

the 11 circuit has a lemon law three

strikes in you're out and she's made

three this will be her third major

reversible error decision as a young

immature inexperienced judge two to

start the case about the documents and

the search warrant and one now and if

they reassign her which they're allowed

to do under another

statute that she won't be able to

challenge or misinterpret they'll sign

it to another senior judge in the

southern district of Florida could be

judge Middlebrooks who already had the

Clinton Trump case could be judge

altonaga anyone anyone will do a better

job than judge aen Cannon and that's the

issue that the special counsel is now

going to prosecute and of course as I've

done another hot take this opens the

floodgates of attacks against the

special councel not just this special

councel prior special councils come one

come all if you were prosecuted and

convicted by a special counsel you've

got a new case that you can wave around

on your appeal and move to vacate your

judgment or your verdict against you

honor Biden doesn't matter that your

father and his and his lawyers run the

Department of Justice you can try to get

your recent gun conviction overturned

maybe and of course Donald Trump's gonna

file the same motion citing back to aen

Canon in front of Judge chuin I can't

wait for that Collision of intellects to

happen aen Cannon's decision Half Baked

as it is too smart by half as it is

going before judge judkin in the DC

election interference case I think she

make short work of that motion to

dismiss and then you've the DC court of

appeals probably affirming the same

thing will it eventually end up with the

United States Supreme Court yes when

will that be not this term term is over

sometime in the next term which means

sometime between uh election day and the

inauguration or after we'll follow it

all like we always do here on the

mightest touch network and on legal AF

follow me Michael popac on all things

social media Ms popok and I'm a

contributor and a playlist over on this

YouTube channel look under Michael popok

so till my next hot take till my next

legal AF this is Michael popo reporting

[admin]

Supreme Court CAUGHT USING FOX to help FAILING Trump
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
Aug 5, 2024 Legal AF Podcast

Alt-right Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch just went on Fox News to THREATEN President Joe Biden and VP Harris and their efforts to return ethics and accountability to the Supreme Court. Michael Popok puts the outrageous appearance in perspective and analyzes the fall of Gorsuch.



Transcript


Shannon you're not going to be surprised
that I'm not going to get into what is
now a political issue during a
presidential election year I I don't
think that would be helpful I have one
thought to add it is that the
independent
Judiciary means what does it mean to you
as an American it means that when you're
unpopular you can get a fair hearing
under the law and under the Constitution
if you're in the majority you don't need
judges and jur
to hear you and protect your rights
you're popular it's there for the
moments when when the spotlights on you
when the government's coming after you
and don't you want a ferociously
independent judge and a jury of your
peers to make those decisions isn't that
your right as an
American and so I just say be careful
this is Michael popok legal AF a United
States Supreme Court Justice just went
on Fox News and threatened the president
of the United States there's no other
way for me to frame this Neil Gorsuch
doesn't like the reforms to the United
States Supreme Court that are being
proposed by Joe Biden and vice president
K Harris they want to put term limits on
the length of time that the Supreme
Court Justice can be there they want to
add new Supreme Court justi to expand
the court from nine they want to add an
Ethics code and to Neil Gorsuch his
response watch out
look out really watch out look out first
of all what are you doing on Fox News I
mean you have to know that Fox News is a
trigger is a signal that you're on the
all far right why don't you go on CNN
why don't you go on C-Span how about
C-SPAN you never hear anybody AR you
never hear anybody argue about C-SPAN
but if I'm driving by a United States
Supreme Court Justice's house like Sam
Alo and I see upside down us flags and
other flags of the insurrection not one
but two of his houses how do you think
that makes me feel as an advocate before
the United States Supreme Court you
think I'm getting a fair shot do you
think I think Justice is blind do you
think that sends the right signal to the
American people about what you just
called the ferocity of independent
Judiciary and the same thing when you go
on Fox news now I get that that during
your off time the Supreme Court Justice
like to take vacations on the right
usually paid for by Federalist Society
supporters for millions of dollars you
like to write books you like to give
speeches you like to give lectures you
like to teach courses and international
law around the world I get it I get it
you're not paid enough apparently on the
United States Supreme Court you got to
abide your time but to go on Fox News is
to put a finger in the eye of America
and put your foot on its throat and what
you're declaring is you're not
ferociously independent Neil
gorsage okay you're I don't know you
should watch that clip again first you
say in just listen to what he says he
says I really he he's talking to Sharon
bream there for Fox News I I really
don't want to in the middle I'm sure you
won't be surprised in the middle of a
campaign I'm not going to be pulled into
a political issue but as long as you've
asked let me let me threaten the United
States president and talk about and
reframe the issue as sort of a straw man
that has nothing to do with the
arguments that are being presented in
favor of reforming and out of control
United States Supreme Court in in July
the United States Supreme Court
completely rebalanced in the wrong way
our three supposedly co-equal branches
of government and destroyed any checks
and balances that exist by making the
presidency Above the Law in the immunity
decision they say they said in one
sentence in in the Trump versus US
decision in July the 1st on immunity no
man is above the law no president yes
they are they are by the very virtue of
that decision you now have a leviathan
outof control super imperial presidency
on top you then have two smaller things
underneath one called legislative branch
and one called
um a one called the judicial branch
that's what you got left barely tethered
together because of their decision and
now on top of it he says listen listen
to these words that you just heard from
a United States Supreme Court sitting
Justice
one he says the majority that's popular
doesn't need judges and juries what what
world what upside down world is he
living in
popularity mean uh ensures
Justice we'll just put it to a vote I
mean why don't we do that why don't we
just have a game show every week where
all of the important issues about
Reproductive Rights and voting rights
and and immigration issues and National
Security and energy policy why don't we
just put it up for a vote like Family
Feud survey says that's that's what he's
trying that's what he's trying to say he
says the independent fer the Ferocious
independent Judiciary is necessary for
the unpopular Donald Trump's unpopular
that's been our
problem I mean it just makes no sense
and and looking how gorsuch's mind works
is a scary proposition and the Judgment
or lack of judgment he made by going on
Fox News how does he think the American
people feel as he's thumbing his nose at
them and poking them in the eye by going
on Fox News what about
C-SPAN nobody's ever had a problem with
C-SPAN go on C-Span go on cable access
at 2 o'clock in the morning nobody would
have an objection but to go on the
Maga red triggering Network FOX News
owned by Rupert Murdoch that's that's
your outlet
see I'm funny that way I like United
States Supreme Court Justices who seem
to be independent who at least try to
act like justice is blind and that the
scales of Justice are in equipoise and
are perfectly balanced I don't like to
drive by think about the American people
driving by Sam malo's house and seeing
an upside down American flag the sign of
insurrection on Jan 6th and another
Insurrection his flag sitting sitting
over on appeal to Heaven sitting on
another summer home of his and now I got
to be an advocate as a lawyer advocating
in front of the United States Supreme
Court for all oral argument in October
do I think Justice is blind do I think
I've got alito's ear and that he's being
neutral and independent until he forms
his opinion or is he biased and on the
far right what about Neil Gorsuch if I'm
looking at you know it's always a Leo
writing for the Wall Street Journal
another rert Murdoch Outlet talking
about in 2023 Alo said I don't think
Congress even has the ability to
regulate anything related to the Supreme
Court and Gorsuch saying the same thing
today I mean think of the book listen to
the title of the book that Neil gorsage
is Shilling and selling on Fox
News the it's called
overruled not overruled overruled too
many laws in America just what I want
from my United States Supreme Court
Justice him believing that there's too
many laws on the books oh it's so
complicated and confusing I can't figure
it out
except he what he's really doing what he
really means is over precedented there's
too much precedent there's too much bad
law from the past made by not right all
rightwing courts and I want to change it
that's what he means it's not that
there's too much law it's that there's
too much law he doesn't like and he
wants to ignore it overturn it vacate it
and recreate In His Image I've talked
about in the past what the rise or
actually the fall of Neil Gorsuch who we
had some hope for even though he was a
magar right we had some hope for when he
was when he was appointed that maybe be
his own person and move towards the
center we're watching a little bit of a
move to center right by Amy con Barrett
for instance and to a certain degree
Neil
Kavanaugh I mean uh Brett Kavanaugh we
leave for another hot take their
politics and values and morals or lack
thereof but they've moved to a little
bit closer to Roberts and further away
from Gorsuch Alo and Thomas Gorsuch far
altright he's now voting reliably in the
alt-right with Thomas and Alo if you see
a
anti-democratic attack on our democracy
or our constitution or our way of life
in a Supreme Court decision you will see
it joined by Gorsuch Jolo and Thomas
that Unholy triangle,
and now you know now if you
had any doubts that that's where his
head's at Mr I think there's too many
laws Mr judge goes on Fox look at the
Judgment or lack of Judgment of Neil
Gorsuch to go on Fox
News and give this interview and then
and then
say completely disingenuously oh I
couldn't I couldn't possibly offer an
opinion about politics during a campaign
but as long as you've
asked let me give you my opinion look
out watch out Joe Biden watch out for
what what are you going to do what are
you going to do against like what what
I've said on legal AF this past weekend
is watch out for Joe Biden he's not lame
duck he's Unshackled
right somebody somebody in our
production team said it's two week
notice Joe
Biden he gave he gave his six months
notice and now he's going to accomplish
everything he ever wanted to accomplish
that he couldn't before I mean in 2021
there was a blue ribbon panel that was
appointed by Joe Biden to make
recommendations about the Reformation of
the Supreme Court and at the time while
he had you know running for re-election
and lots of other policies to consider
he decided I'm not really ready to take
on that fight he is is now and you know
who's right behind him or right next to
him his partner vice president kamla
Harris who we hope to be Madame
president-elect kamla Harris in a few
months and that's what Gorsuch is going
to take on it's always we're not going
to go as we're not going to go into the
political realm and go to the joint
joint houses of Congress uh uh uh and
watch the president give his State of
the Union Address oh oh we couldn't do
that you know well why not all the
center and Center left justices go but
Gorsuch can't go Thomas and Alo can't go
it's beneath them it's so's their
appearance of Independence I got news
for them there is no appearance of
independence by the United States
Supreme Court it's a
charade they're bought and paid for by
Baga and the Federalist society and
their all you got to do is look at the
rulings the proof of the pudding is in
the taste thing read the rulings
why is it that I have to give hot take
after hot take about the attack on women
and Reproductive Rights making them set
second class citizens why do I have to
talk about another Super precedent Going
Back 40 or 50 years being ripped out of
the books and out of the Constitution by
the rightwing why do I have to talk
about a leviathan out ofcontrol
presidency that's now Above the Law why
do I have to talk about the dismantling
of the barrier between church and state
established by our framers because of
the alt-right because of Neil Gorsuch
and now you see him not tongue and cheek
but with a chesher cat
grin going on Fox
news that talk about there's too much
law in America yeah because you're and
you're busy getting rid of most of it
that's called
precedent we got to call this stuff out
it is it is outrageous sometimes I look
in the I I I often look in the comments
for I take like this and some people
slip into the comments that are on let's
just say the alt-right and the thing
that they say and write out loud which
what they think is impunity because they
believe they've got supporters in their
camp on the Jan 6 insurrectionist camp
like Neil Gorsuch I mean I heard him ask
some crazy questions during the oral
argument on the immunity
decision basically suggesting that a
president could pardon himself that's
Neil Gorsuch not just in a hypothetical
was the way he asked it was
chilling that you could sell a pardon
you could pardon yourself and you could
sell a pardon and as long as it's part
of official conduct or core
constitutional conduct it's okay
founding followers would have been okay
with president's setting up a for salees
sign and selling their powers according
to Neil Gorsuch and I was like wow if
this guy ever writes one of these
opinions or gets his hands on one of
these issues we're done that's why it
didn't surprise me when he was in the
majority to to to do a solid for the Jan
6 insurrectionist and take two of the um
uh highest prison term crimes off the
books against them that of obstruction
of an official proceeding oh no that
wasn't made for that that was made for
something else that that law when
Congress got together in 2002 yes the
words actually say that it could be
applied to this scenario guch and others
wrote but no that's we we we can't allow
that that's that that's they they
weren't trying to stop the Electoral
account they weren't what what were the
J 6 insurrectionists doing uh associate
Justice gorsage this was just a uh a
tour a tour of the capital that had
gotten out of control is that it they
were just this was just tourism instead
of insurrection have you seen the
footage
man now I know who's seen the footage
the DC El the DC uh uh courts and judges
you know the the federal DC trial judges
have all seen the footage thousands and
thousands of hours of the insurrection
watching the Capital burn watching
medieval battles with an outmatched
Capital
police right in the western tunnel in
the west Portico hand toand combat by
Jan's Insurrection is fermented and
pointed there by Donald Trump but it
hasn't got up to the United States
Supreme Court they don't like to talk
about this those pesky little things
called the facts surrounding Donald
Trump so let's not get M whenever you
hear Neil gorsage Alo or Thomas say
let's not get mired in the
facts they're an appell IT Court they're
only supposed to be mired in the factual
record developed below not making up new
facts not tossing out facts not issuing
opinions that are not Tethered to the
facts you know I know they would like to
get rid of cases altogether I can
tell this is to you uh associate Justice
Gorsuch I know you don't like to be an
appell judge what you want to do is just
be uh an imperial Supreme Court that
just issues rulings having nothing to do
with the cases before you that would be
a lot easier a lot easier you don't have
to worry about the record you just make
new law you want to be a leg you want to
be in the Congress but you're not and
then to say that you all you are also
unchecked presidency's unchecked no
checks in balances Supreme Court's
unchecked I got bad news for you go look
in the Constitution this is a dirty
little secret they don't want to
acknowledge they want to say you always
have to look to the words of the
Constitution we're originalists we're
textualists whatever that means you
always have to look there and only there
if it's not there then we're not going
to enforce it go look there I got time
tell me where in the United States
Constitution is the provision that the
uh about your role on the Supreme Court
about the Supreme Court's role of checks
and balances that they're going to be
the one to declare the law of the land
over and override Congress and the
executive branch go ahead I've got time
it's not there that came out of case law
and precedent primarily by John Marshall
the first supreme court Chief Justice
back in the 1800s in which he
established permanently the role of the
United States Supreme Court in the three
co-equal branches of government before
that and based on the text of the
Constitution it doesn't exist so what do
you do with that textualist and
originalists it's not even in the text
you know what else is not in the text
the number of Supreme Court Justices or
whether they should have a lifetime
appointment that all has to be fixed and
one way or the other Kicking and
Screaming Supreme Court Justice or
threatening the president of the United
States with watch out watch out for what
or what or else or what I mean I'm a New
Yorker or what what are you gonna do
about
it we have to have this conversation
Elizabeth Warren Senator Elizabeth
Warren said the Supreme Court is on the
ballot in November and I agree with her
and now you know why and he's put it
people like Gorsuch has put themselves
on the ballot I've said before and I'll
say it again when they write the history
of this particular combination of the
United States Supreme Court Justices it
will go down as one of the worst in
history it will it'll Circle the Drain
of history and so will gorsage and
defending yourself on Fox News is not
going to matter because your because
everything we need to see is in your
decisions and how you rule and what you
rule on we'll continue to follow it all
on the mest Dutch network and on legal
AF I'm fired up legal AF on Wednesdays
and Saturdays at 800 PM eastern time uh
and then on all audio podcast platforms
just plug in legal AF so until my next
hot take till my next legal AF this is
Michael popok reporting herey herei
legal AF law breakdown is now in session
go beyond the headlines and get a deep
dive into the important legal Concepts
you need to know and we discuss every
day on legal AF exclusive content you
won't find anywhere else all for the
price of a couple of cups of coffee join
us at
patreon.com Leal that's
patreon.com legal AF

[admin]

Trump White House curtailed FBI's Kavanaugh probe, report finds
by Avery Lotz
Axios
10/8/24

[x]
United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh poses for an official portrait on October 7, 2022, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

The Trump White House allegedly sought to constrain and control a 2018 FBI investigation into now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, according to new details documented in a report released Tuesday.

The big picture: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse's (D-R.I.) report details the extreme grip former President Trump's administration kept over the probe into Kavanaugh's alleged sexual misconduct, including having FBI tips forwarded to the White House and preventing agents from pursuing corroborating evidence.

• "The FBI's supplemental background investigation into the sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh was unreliable, not because of FBI ineptitude, but because the Trump White House tightly controlled the scope of the investigation," the report reads.

• Whitehouse's years-long investigation found that messages to the FBI tip line regarding Kavanaugh's background check were forwarded directly to the White House and never probed.

• At the time, many involved in the case — and those who submitted tips — complained that the bureau did not investigate leads it was given.

Case in point: The White House allegedly instructed the FBI to speak to 10 potential witnesses, but the agency was not given latitude to pursue corroborating evidence.

• Trump campaign spokesperson Karoline Leavitt slammed the report as "another attempt to delegitimize the Supreme Court" in a statement provided to Axios.

• "Everyone knows Brett Kavanaugh was unfairly slandered and smeared with lies in a Democrat-led hoax to derail his appointment to the Court that ultimately failed," she continued.

Flashback: Following Christine Blasey Ford's widely reported testimony that Kavanaugh had groped her at a high school party decades prior, Trump approved a limited, one-week-long FBI investigation into the allegations, which Kavanaugh has denied.

• Another accuser, Deborah Ramirez, alleged in a New Yorker story Kavanaugh had waved his penis in front of her face at a college dormitory party.

• After one of the most dramatic confirmation battles in modern history, the Senate confirmed Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump repeatedly vowed he had not restricted the investigation, claiming the FBI would have "free rein" and should talk to "whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion."

• Those Trump comments prompted an FBI official to question whether the "scope of the investigation had changed," per the report.

• Emails cited by the report demonstrated confusion among FBI employees, who repeatedly sought guidance. Eventually, additional interviews were requested by the White House.

• "Contrary to President Trump's public pronouncements, the Trump White House directed the FBI's supplemental background investigation through narrow requests for a small number of limited-inquiry interviews, beyond which the FBI was not authorized to investigate," the report found.

Zoom out: The FBI received more than 4,500 calls and messages related to Kavanaugh — none of which were screened or investigated, the report alleges.

• Additionally, the FBI did not interview Ford or Kavanaugh, despite Ford's attorney repeatedly contacting the agency to request an interview.

• The bureau was given no written protocols for the supplemental background investigation.

• Tips, the report notes, were sent through what is now called the National Threat Operations Center rather than a dedicated venue for the investigation.

• Two days before voting to confirm Kavanaugh, senators were given one copy of 1,600-plus pages of FBI research to review, most of which was raw information from tips, Whitehouse's report says.

What they're saying: "The Congressional report published today confirms what we long suspected: the FBI supplemental investigation of then-nominee Brett Kavanaugh was, in fact, a sham effort directed by the Trump White House to silence brave victims and other witnesses who came forward and to hide the truth," Ford's attorneys, Debra Katz and Lisa Banks, said in a statement.

The FBI declined to comment specifically on the report but said, "The FBI, in its role as an investigative service provider, responds to requests from the Office of White House Counsel and other government entities to conduct background investigations of candidates for certain positions."

• The agency added that the scope of any investigation is "limited to what is requested" but that the FBI followed a "long-standing, established process" for the inquiry into Kavanaugh.

The report took nearly six years to compile, the probe says, because of "executive branch delays, reluctance to answer even basic questions, and often-incomplete responses."

• Until 2021, the only information regarding details of the supplemental investigation senators could collect came from non-official channels, like a "publicly available YouTube video in which an agent explained the normal operating procedures for the FBI's 'tip line.'"