#Expand The Court

[sher-ee]

Justice Alito’s home.

Also:

Also the flag used on Jan. 6th.

Justice Samuel Alito is a partisan insurrectionist. He has no business being on the Supreme Court.

[liberalsarecool]

Lifelong appointments based on perjury should be disqualifying. What other occupation would allow such corruption/lack of ethics?

[aunti-christ-ine]

[soberscientistlife]

Expand the court

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Supreme Court poised to appoint federal judges to run the US economy.

January 18, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JAN 17, 2024

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on two cases that provide the Court with the opportunity to overturn the “Chevron deference doctrine.” Based on comments from the Justices, it seems likely that the justices will overturn judicial precedent that has been settled for forty years. If they do, their decision will reshape the balance of power between the three branches of government by appointing federal judges as regulators of the world’s largest economy, supplanting the expertise of federal agencies (a.k.a. the “administrative state”).

Although the Chevron doctrine seems like an arcane area of the law, it strikes at the heart of the US economy. If the Court were to invalidate the doctrine, it would do so in service of the conservative billionaires who have bought and paid for four of the justices on the Court. The losers would be the American people, who rely on the expertise of federal regulators to protect their water, food, working conditions, financial systems, public markets, transportation, product safety, health care services, and more.

The potential overruling of the Chevron doctrine is a proxy for a broader effort by the reactionary majority to pare the power of the executive branch and Congress while empowering the courts. Let’s take a moment to examine the context of that effort.

But I will not bury the lead (or the lede): The reactionary majority on the Court is out of control. In disregarding precedent that conflicts with the conservative legal agenda of its Federalist Society overlords, the Court is acting in a lawless manner. It is squandering hard-earned legitimacy. It is time to expand the Court—the only solution that requires a simple majority in two chambers of Congress and the signature of the president.

The “administrative state” sounds bad. Is it?

No. The administrative state is good. It refers to the collective body of federal employees, regulators, and experts who help maintain an orderly US economy. Conservatives use the term “administrative state” to denigrate federal regulation and expertise. They want corporations to operate free of all federal restraint—free to pollute, free to defraud, free to impose dangerous and unfair working conditions, free to release dangerous products into the marketplace, and free to engage in deceptive practices in public markets.

The US economy is the largest, most robust economy in the world because federal regulators impose standards for safety, honesty, transparency, and accountability. Not only is the US economy the largest in the world (as measured by nominal GDP), but its GDP per capita ($76,398) overshadows that of the second largest economy, China ($12,270). The US dollar is the reserve currency for the world and its markets are a haven for foreign investment and capital formation. See The Top 25 Economies in the World (investopedia.com)

US consumers, banks, investment firms, and foreign investors are attracted to the US economy because it is regulated. US corporations want all the benefits of regulations—until regulations get in the way of making more money. It is at that point that the “administrative state” is seen as “the enemy” by conservatives who value profit maximization above human health, safety, and solvency.

It is difficult to comprehend how big the US economy is. To paraphrase Douglas Adams’s quote about space, “It’s big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is.” Suffice to say, the US economy is so big it cannot be regulated by several hundred federal judges with dockets filled with criminal cases and major business disputes.

Nor can Congress pass enough legislation to keep pace with ever changing technological and financial developments. Congress can’t pass a budget on time; the notion that it would be able to keep up with regulations necessary to regulate Bitcoin trading in public markets is risible.

What is the Chevron deference doctrine?

Managing the US economy requires hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts—a.k.a. “regulators”—who bring order, transparency, and honesty to the US economy. Those experts must make millions of judgments each year in creating, implementing and applying federal regulations.

And this is where the “Chevron deference doctrine” comes in. When federal experts and regulators interpret federal regulations in esoteric areas such as maintaining healthy fisheries, their decisions should be entitled to a certain amount of deference. And they have received such deference since 1984, when the US Supreme Court created a rule of judicial deference to decisions by federal regulators in the case of Chevron v. NRDC.

What happened at oral argument?

In a pair of cases, the US Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday as to whether the Chevron deference doctrine should continue—or whether the Court should overturn the doctrine and effectively throw out 17,000 federal court decisions applying the doctrine. According to Court observers, including Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, the answer is “Yes, the Court is poised to appoint federal judges as regulators of the US economy.” See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court is seizing more power from Democratic presidents. (slate.com)

I recommend Stern’s article for a description of the grim atmosphere at the oral argument—kind of “pre-demise” wake for the Chevron deference doctrine. Stern does a superb job of explaining the effects of overruling Chevron:

Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.

The Kochs and the Federalist Society have bought and paid for this sad outcome. The chaos that will follow will hurt consumers, travelers, investors, patients and—ultimately—American businesses, who will no longer be able to rely on federal regulators for guidance as to the meaning of federal regulations. Instead, businesses will get an answer to their questions after lengthy, expensive litigation before overworked and ill-prepared judges implement a political agenda.

Expand the Court. Disband the reactionary majority by relegating it to an irrelevant minority. If we win control of both chambers of Congress in 2024 and reelect Joe Biden, expanding the Court should be the first order of business.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Dean Obeidallah at The Dean's Report:

Today’s GOP controlled Supreme Court is nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party focused on imposing their right-wing agenda upon us--from ending fundamental rights like abortion and marriage equality to undermining voting rights and more.  That is why we must work to win control of the Supreme Court the same way we work to win control of the House, Senate and White House. That means going forward every Democratic presidential candidate must commit to “winning the court” (aka “reform of the Supreme Court”) or we should not support that person. The latest example of this grotesquely partisan court came Thursday in the oral argument of Donald Trump’s appeal that he has absolute immunity to commit all the crimes he wants as President. The six GOP Justices—who were all active in Republican politics or administrations before being picked by GOP presidents to serve—showed zero concern that Trump was charged with crimes for attempting to wage a coup to remain in power despite losing.  Instead, it was clear that the Republican justices are focused on protecting Trump by delaying his Jan 6 trial beyond Election Day.

If these justices were truly concerned with protecting our Republic, they would have agreed to hear this case in December 2023 when Special Counsel Jack Smith asked the court to fast track Trump’s appeal of the trial judge’s decision denying him immunity in the Jan 6 case.  But that was rejected by the GOP controlled court to help Trump delay his trial. And in the end, the Republican justices may render a decision that makes it all but impossible to prosecute Trump for his crimes in the Jan 6 case. In reality, no one should be surprised that the Republican justices would protect the presidential nominee of their party in an election year. That is especially true given that three of those justices were appointed by Trump. [...]

And the GOP Supreme Court is helping Republicans impose these women killing abortion bans. We saw this on Wednesday when the court considered a challenge from Idaho Republicans to a federal law that mandates doctors to provide an abortion to a woman who is faced with an medical emergency.  It’s clear from the oral argument that GOP justices support the Idaho state law that makes it illegal for doctor to perform an abortion--even if a woman is suffering horribly or could suffer permanent injuries. Only if a woman is literally on the doorstep of death after suffering extensively and begging for help would these Republican justices allow an abortion. This is barbarism—and it’s also the mainstream GOP position. The GOP controlled court has also repeatedly chipped away at the wall between church and state to pave the way for a theocracy consistent with their right-wing religious views. For example, in 2023, the GOP justices rolled back anti-discrimination protections for the LGBTQ community in the name of “religious freedom.”

In addition, these same GOP justices weakened the Voting Rights Act and greatly restricted the ability of the EPA to address climate change. And in a case that will literally result in more Americans being killed by gun violence, these same six Justices struck down in 2022 a century old New York state law that limited who can carry a concealed weapon.  Justice Thomas—in between lavish gifts from his billionaire benefactor—wrote in that case that modern gun control laws must be “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.” This decision has resulted in courts striking down a wide range of modern gun laws—including prohibitions on guns in mass transit, guns in post offices, guns with obliterated serial numbers and gun possession by certain felons. Whatever the GOP wants, this court will deliver. That means—as Justice Thomas has vowed—the court will, when given a chance, limit access to forms of birth control that right wing theocrats oppose, roll back marriage equality and more. The reason the GOP Supreme Court is so acutely dangerous to our freedoms and rights is that there are no checks on their power. These justices don’t answer to the voters. There is no way to directly defeat them in an election. (We can’t even force Thomas to recuse himself from Jan 6 cases despite his obvious conflict of interest!)

[...] That is why Democrats going forward must make reforming this court a priority. That could mean—by way of a federal law--expanding the court to say 13 justices to match the number of federal court of appeals. It could mean rotating judges from Supreme Court to lower federal courts after a set number of years. Reform can also mean “term limits” for justices—which polls show is supported by 67 percent of Americans. There is no greater threat to our freedoms, rights and democratic Republic than today’s corruptly partisan Supreme Court. That is why every Democratic presidential candidate and those seeking a House or Senate seat must make “reforming the court” a priority. It’s time to transform the US Supreme Court from an arm of the GOP back to a real a court!

Dean Obeidallah nails it: The Supreme Court must be expanded and reformed to counter the ill-gotten GOP edge on the court.

[shamelessequilibria]

From the recent SCOTUS dissenting opinion

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday said that the Supreme Court has “gone rogue” after it overturned Roe v. Wade last month, a move that upset Democrats who say several justices had not been forthcoming about their feelings regarding the 1973 landmark abortion rights decision during their confirmation hearings.

Ocasio-Cortez said the move from the conservative wing means a number of changes should be considered for the high court.

“I believe impeachment should be on the table. I believe court expansion should be on the table. I believe that ethics rules should be on the table. I believe that recusal requirements should be on the table,” Ocasio-Cortez told reporters.

“I think all of it should be considered right now. And we shouldn’t be putting any tools out because of … the degree of which this court has gone rogue.”

Ocasio-Cortez also noted one Supreme Court Justice whom she believed should be impeached.

“I believe that Clarence Thomas should be impeached without a shadow of a doubt,” the New York Democrat said.

Ocasio-Cortez noted a letter that she and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wrote to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) asking Democrats in the upper chamber to take a position on whether Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, who were also a part of the majority opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, had lied under oath during their confirmation process.

Not all Senate Democrats, however, are on board with considering impeachment against some of the Supreme Court Justices that joined the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

“I don’t think it’s realistic,” Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told “Fox News Sunday” over the weekend regarding impeaching Thomas. “I think it’s a mistake as to whether he’s going to be impeached. It’s not realistic, but [Thomas] should show good judgment. If this court is going to be credible, it has to be as apolitical as possible.”

Responding to Durbin’s apprehension about considering impeachment against Supreme Court Justices, Ocasio-Cortez called it a “crisis of legitimacy.”

“Here’s where I think there’s a very serious issue: Is the United States Senate about to establish a new precedent that it is now acceptable and there will be no consequence for a nominee to lie to duly-elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land?” she asked.

[odinsblog]

Three queens gotta hold it down now (they need reinforcements)

[originalleftist]

SCOTUS is empowered to interpret the law, but they are not gods. If they declared tomorrow that Trump was dictator for life, would that suddenly make it Constitutional? Of course not. Neither can they erase the 14th Amendment, section three, by which a person who violated their oath of office to the United States by engaging in insurrection is disqualified from holding a range of offices, including the Presidency. SCOTUS never even tried to claim that Trump's actions did not amount to insurrection. They simply asserted there was a requirement to disqualify him (a vote by Congress) that does not exist in the law, thereby effectively neutering Amendment 14, Section III and clearing the path of every insurrectionist, past and future, to hold office. There remains a very strong argument that Trump cannot lawfully be president, fuck whatever SCOTUS says, no more than if he were a child or a non-citizen. So when you vote in November, you are not voting for who will be the next President- you are voting for whether there will BE a legitimate president at all.

[anxiouscryptidpartner]

I forgot to put this on here the other day but it's

Wrath Time

We need to dismantle the system and, failing that, expand the US Supreme Court, which I'm linking a petition for below.

[aunti-christ-ine]

[soberscientistlife]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Trump sycophants parroting attacks on justice system risk further provoking MAGA extremists

+

+

Defending the Judiciary in 2024

May 17, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

Events on Thursday highlighted yet another reason Democrats must vote in record numbers in November to defeat MAGA extremism. Republicans are undermining the institution of the judiciary in every way imaginable. Eroding the legitimacy and authority of the courts is textbook fascism. Indeed, in fascist states, courts are co-opted or replaced, becoming instruments of totalitarian rule.

Every American should be concerned about the coordinated assault on the judiciary by MAGA extremists.

It is difficult to identify Thursday’s most egregious attack on the legitimacy of the courts, but it seems appropriate to begin with Justice Samuel Alito.

Justice Alito displays a “Stop the Steal” flag on his front lawn.

As a Supreme Court justice, Alito has been unapologetic in his efforts to defend Trump's lawlessness. He has risen to Trump's defense with gleeful spite and unveiled resentment against those seeking to hold Trump accountable under the Constitution.

On Thursday, the New York Times revealed that Alito’s home displayed an upside-down US flag during the fraught days after the January 6 insurrection. At the time, flying the US flag upside down was a symbol calling to “Stop the Steal” of the 2020 election from Trump. It was a call to insurrection—proudly displayed by a US Supreme Court justice sworn to defend and protect the Constitution. See New York Times, At Justice Alito’s House, a ‘Stop the Steal’ Symbol on Display. (This article is accessible to all.)

In response to an inquiry from the Times, Alito said,

I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag.

Notably, Alito did not deny the veracity of the photograph of the flag flying upside down on his lawn. He did not deny the symbolism of the upside-down flag. He did not deny that he was aware of its continued presence in front of his house. Instead, he blamed his wife, whom he claimed flew the “Stop the Steal” banner in response to anti-Trump signs in the neighborhood.

Alito’s response to the Times is a lie. He owns the flag. He owns the flagpole. He owns the property on which the flag was displayed. He permitted it to remain on display on his property. He, therefore, did have “involvement” in “flying the flag.” It does not matter that it was his wife who physically raised the “Stop the Steal” banner on the flagpole. Alito’s hair-splitting denial is misleading and incomplete—and therefore false.

All of this leaves us with a second justice on the Supreme Court whose spouse was a booster of the effort to overthrow the Constitution and prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

Those justices—Alito and Thomas—are currently considering Trump's presidential immunity defense to the indictment alleging that Trump attempted to subvert the election. Under any reasonable reading of Code of Conduct that applies to Supreme Court justices, Alito and Thomas should have recused themselves long ago (under Canons 2 and 3).

The fact that Alito and Thomas have failed to do so is an open wound on the Court, oozing pus and bile every time they take the bench in a matter involving Trump's coup and insurrection.

Ultimately, the feckless Chief Justice John Roberts is to blame. He has allowed a sprawling and continuing scandal to consume the dwindling legitimacy of the Court. He has allowed that scandal to fester in order to provide cover for the most corrupt president in our nation’s history—which is a fitting epitaph for Roberts’ squandered legacy.

Texas Governor Abbott nullifies jury’s conviction of racist who killed Black Lives Matter protestor.

In the aftermath of the murder of George Floyd, Daniel Perry shot and killed a protester who was carrying a gun (which is legal in Texas). A jury heard the evidence—including Perry’s claim of self-defense—and convicted Perry of murder. Perry was sentenced to 25 years in prison. After the verdict, Texas Governor Greg Abbott said he wanted to pardon Perry.

On Thursday, the Texas pardon board gave Abbott the recommendation to pardon Perry. Abbott issued an immediate pardon, and Perry is now back on the street—with his right to carry firearms restored. See Texas Gov. Greg Abbott pardons Daniel Perry, Army sergeant convicted of murdering protester in 2020 (nbcnews.com).

In pardoning Perry, Abbott issued a statement that denigrated the jury’s verdict and consideration of the evidence of self-defense. Abbott wrote,

Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury . . . .

 When a jury hears the evidence and concludes “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the defendant is guilty, notwithstanding claimed self-defense, that verdict is not a “nullification” of the law; it is the application of the law. But in Abbot’s MAGA extremist administration, jury verdicts that run contrary to MAGA orthodoxy can be disregarded.

Overriding the justice system to advance partisan political ends is dangerous. If some Texans believe that the law does not apply to them, they will act lawlessly—exactly as Daniel Perry did when he shot a protester who was trying to make the point that Black lives matter to the same degree as white lives. Today, Governor Greg Abbott told Texans that is not true in Texas—and he did so by attacking the integrity of the jury trial system. The message and the means are antithetical to democracy.

New parade of GOP representatives appears at Trump trial

The “red tie” brigade was back in force at the Trump trial in Manhattan. About a dozen Republicans (mostly from Congress) appeared outside the courtroom to bash Judge Merchan, his family, and prosecutors. They filed into the courtroom as a phalanx, interrupting the cross-examination of Michael Cohen.

Why was Thursday’s spectacle worse than those on previous days? Because those who rose to show their support for Trump included Trump's indicted co-conspirator, Jeffrey Clark, as well as outcasts of the Freedom Caucus Lauren Boebert and Matt Gaetz.

In a particularly appalling statement, Gaetz posted a picture of Thursday’s parade of GOP officials at the trial alongside the caption, “Standing back and standing by, Mr. President.”

To be clear, Gaetz’s statement is a threat of violence against the judiciary if Trump is convicted. There is no other reasonable interpretation of the picture and caption in the context of the statements made outside the courtroom. See HuffPo, Matt Gaetz Parrots Trump’s Call To Proud Boys At His Trial.

The continued spectacle by Republican lawmakers is a clear violation of the gag order. The government officials are escorted into the courtroom and seated in seats reserved for Trump's defense team. As visible members of Trump's defense team, their statements are made on behalf of Trump. Judge Merchan should find Trump in contempt for those statements and order Trump to be detained. The failure of Judge Merchan to do so further undermines the authority of the judicial system.

While I am not criticizing Judge Merchan, it is clear that the willingness of Republican officials to break every norm of the rule of law has overwhelmed the ability of the judge to enforce the rules against Trump. And with the overlay of Gaetz’s threat of violence, Judge Merchan’s reluctance to apply the rule of law to Trump is understandable—though disappointing.

Here's my point: Thursday brought to the fore multiple examples of the MAGA effort to undermine the judiciary in the US. The only way to stop the attacks is to defeat Republicans up and down the ballot. The 2024 election is important for many reasons, not merely because we will re-elect Joe Biden. We must reverse the retrograde, reactionary MAGA movement to destroy one of the most important guardrails in democracy—a fair and independent judiciary.

Justice Alito dissents in case that would have triggered a Great Depression

On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). In so holding, seven justices rejected a theory that would have declared two-thirds of federal funding unconstitutional and eliminated regulations that control the banking and financial markets. The banking industry was so alarmed that it begged the justices to save the CFPB and the regulations that instruct the industry on how to conduct business lawfully. See Ian Millhiser in Vox, The Supreme Court decides not to trigger a second Great Depression.

The case is notable because it represents another defeat for the rogue judges on the reactionary Fifth Circuit who are hellbent on destroying the federal system of regulation that is responsible for the orderly operation of the world’s largest economy. See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Supreme Court CFPB: The judicial arsonists went too far for the conservative justices this time.

But justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented, arguing that Congress must continually re-authorize and fund federal programs that are permanent fixtures of the American system of regulation. As Mark Joseph Stern notes, Alito cited to English history under King James to bolster his contention that the Supreme Court can strike down congressional appropriations:

To side with the 5th Circuit, Alito had to fixate on a somewhat random period of English history in the 17th century—from James I to Charles I—to assert that the Constitution empowers courts to strike down appropriations that they dislike.

Alito and Gorsuch are dangerous radicals whose voices must be overwhelmed by expanding the Court.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[mudwerks]

(via Clarence Thomas Ditches GW Law School Post Amid Fury Over Roe Dismantling)

It’s a start - but we have to get the Supreme Court far away from christo-fascist control.

EXPAND THE COURT  

[thesocklesswonder]

[Image ID: A gif of the words "expand the court" in blue, pulsing larger and smaller, against a black background. A gold and purple set of scales are moving up and down in the center of the image. Six green leaves that are possibly laurels decorate the top and sides of the image. Two sets of gold and purple "gavel with sound block" decorate the lower corners. /.End ID]

Fuck the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority conservative justices have shown they don't care about anyone who isn't lining their pockets or licking their boots, so fuck 'em and balance that shit out!

We've been telling Biden for years to expand - it's long overdue. Will he listen now that student loan forgiveness and affirmative action got swatted down?

There's a vote coming up. Vote Blue!