#judge Kaplan

[liberalsarecool]

Trump is a rapist. Republicans have no good faith answer, no pivot, so they will support Trump and continue to attack women. #WarOnWomen

White supremacy within a white nationalist political cult needs a rapist to be the leader.

The abuse, racism, and misogyny will be unleashed on Nikki Haley.

[ggriarivera]

Judge Kaplan has Habbanough.

[wauln]

[ FTX Founder Sam Bankman-Fried Found Guilty ]

[tootern2345]

Various Beavis & Butt-Head production art including a cel from a season 7 episode, Just for Girls. Some drawings from No Laughing, and layout & storyboards from Beavis and Butt-Head Do America by Kevin Brownie

[grits-galraisedinthesouth]

CNN removed the full video and the NYC judge, Lewis Kaplan, refused to admit Carroll's own words as evidence.

E Jean's Attorney & Judge Lewis Kaplan were colleagues at the same law firm.

Here's the FULL video CNN tried to hide:

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The Obama-appointed Judge who was overseeing Disney’s lawsuit against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis recused himself on Thursday over a relative’s ownership of 30 shares of Disney stock.

The case was transferred to Judge Allen C. Winsor, an appointee of President Trump who previously upheld the state’s Parental Rights in Education law. That law, known to its critics as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, is at the center of the Disney-DeSantis controversy.

Disney sued DeSantis in April, alleging that the state had engaged in a campaign of retaliation against the company over its opposition to the bill. The state rescinded Disney’s special governing district in Orlando, and then reconstituted it under the control of five DeSantis appointees.

Disney has argued that the state has sought to punish the company for protected speech, and is seeking to overturn the state’s actions.

The lawsuit was initially assigned to Judge Mark E. Walker, whom President Obama appointed to the bench in 2012.

DeSantis’ lawyers sought to have Walker removed on the grounds that his previous comments in other cases show he might be biased against the Governor. In one case, the judge noted that Disney might lose its special status because, “arguably,” it “ran afoul of state policy.”

Disney’s lawyers, led by Daniel Petrocelli, argued that was not nearly enough to merit disqualification.

Walker agreed with Disney and denied the DeSantis motion on Thursday, saying it was “wholly without merit.”

“In fact, I find the motion is nothing more than rank judge-shopping,” he wrote. “Sadly, this practice has become all too common in this district.”

However, Walker also noted that his relative owns Disney stock, and that he therefore has an ethical duty to step aside.

The case will instead go to Winsor, who previously served as Florida’s solicitor general. In that role, he defended the state’s law outlawing same-sex marriage in 2014.

In February, Winsor dismissed a lawsuit from students and parents who alleged that the Parental Rights in Education law had caused schools to remove books with LGBTQ themes from libraries and to remove LGBTQ lyrics from school musicals.

That lawsuit was brought by Roberta Kaplan, who won a landmark gay rights case at the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. v. Windsor, in 2013. In the Florida case, she argued that the law violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education.

Winsor dismissed the suit twice, ruling both times that the plaintiffs had not shown that they suffered enough harm to warrant standing in federal court.

“Plaintiffs have shown a strident disagreement with the new law, and they have alleged facts to show its very existence causes them deep hurt and disappointment,” Winsor wrote. “But to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction, they must allege more. Their failure to do so requires dismissal.”

Walker, the Obama-appointed Judge, had previously ruled against DeSantis in high-profile cases. In November, he blocked a law against “woke” ideology from taking effect at state universities.

Walker also struck down state voting restrictions last year, finding that the state had a “horrendous history of racial discrimination in voting.” DeSantis called the ruling “performative partisanship” and appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed Walker’s ruling earlier this year.

[baycitystygian]

losing my mind over the fact that the ONE video I wanted to watch has somehow DISAPPEARED FROM THE INTERNET like who do I have to suck off to be able to watch the Captain and Tennille show 50’s medley with some of the cast of Happy Days and Gabe Kaplan

[emperornorton47]

[1americanconservative]

Should they arrest Judge Kaplan?

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Red-teaming the SCOTUS code of conduct

Tomorrow (November 18) at 1PM, I'll be in Concord, NH at Gibson's Books, presenting my new novel The Lost Cause, a preapocalyptic tale of hope in the climate emergency.

On Monday (November 20), I'm at the Simsbury, CT Public Library at 7PM

Last April, Propublica's Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski dropped a bombshell: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas had been showered in high-ticket "gifts" by billionaire ideologue Harlan Crow, who subsequently benefited from Thomas's rulings in the court:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow

This was just the beginning: in the coming days and weeks, more and more of Thomas's corruption came to light, everything from the fact that his mother's home had been bought by Crow, to the fact that Thomas's adoptive son went to a fancy private school on Crow's dime:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

The news was explosive and not merely because of the corruption it revealed in the country's highest court. The credibility of the court itself was at its lowest ebb in living memory, thanks to the two judges who occupied stolen seats – Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett. One of those judges – Kavanaugh – is a credibly accused rapist. Thomas is also a credibly accused sexual abuser:

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/01/30-years-after-her-testimony-anita-hill-still-wants-something-from-joe-biden-514884

Then, this illegitimate court went on to deliver a string of upsets to long-settled law, culminating in the Dobbs decision, which triggered state laws that force small children to bear their rapists' babies:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/health/abortion-bans-rape-incest.html

That was the context for the Thomas bribery scandal, which was swiftly joined by another bribery scandal, involving Samuel Alito's improper acceptance of valuable gifts from Paul Singer, another billionaire who brought business before the court:

https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court

This string of scandals and outrages naturally prompted public curiosity about the Supreme Court's ethical standards, and that triggered fresh waves of incredulous outrage when we all found out that the Supreme Court doesn't have any:

https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2023/why-doesnt-the-supreme-court-have-a-formal-code-of-ethics/

When Congress made tentative noises about providing minor checks and balances on the court, the justices erupted in outrage, telling Congress to go fuck itself:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/supreme-court-ethics-durbin/cf67ef8450ea024d/full.pdf

Chief Justice Roberts went on whatever the opposite of a charm-offensive is called (an "offense offensive?"), a media tour whose key message to the American people was "STFU, you're hurting our feelings":

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/roberts-defends-high-court-against-attacks-on-its-legitimacy

To the shock of no one except billionaires and Supreme Court justices inhabiting the splendid isolation from societal norms that is the privilege of life tenure, America didn't like this. The Supreme Court's credibility plummeted. A large supermajority of Americans – 79%! – now support age limits for Supreme Court justices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/18/the-people-no/#tell-ya-what-i-want-what-i-really-really-want

Support for packing the Supreme Court is at an historic high and gaining ground, now sitting neck-and-neck with opposition at 46% in favor/51% opposed. Among under-30s, there's a healthy majority (58%) in favor of appointing more SCOTUS justices.

As Roberts' wounded bleats reveal, SCOTUS is very sensitive to its plummeting legitimacy. After all, the court doesn't have an army, nor does it have a police force. Supreme Court rulings only matter to the extent that the American people accept them as legitimate and obey them. Transformational presidents like Lincoln and FDR have waged successful wars against the Supreme Court, sidelining its authority and turning it into an unimportant rump institution for years afterward:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/05/26/mint-the-coin-etc-etc/#blitz-em

Now the Supremes are working their way through the (mythological but convenient) five stages of grief. Having passed through Denial and Anger, they've arrived at Bargaining, with the publication of the court's first "code" "of" "conduct":

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf

It's…not good. As Max Moran writes for The American Prospect and The Revolving Door Project, the proposed code amounts to "security theater," a set of trivially bypassed strictures that would not have prevented any of the scandals to date and will permit far worse in the years to come:

https://prospect.org/justice/2023-11-17-supreme-court-objectivity-theater/

The security framing is a very useful tool for evaluating the Supremes' proposal. The purpose of a code of conduct isn't merely to prevent people from accidentally misstepping – it's to prevent malicious parties from corrupting the judicial process. To evaluate the code, we should red team it: imagine what harms a corrupt judge or a corrupting billionaire would be able to effect while staying within the bounds the code sets.

Seen in that light, the code is wildly defective and absolutely not fit for purpose. Its most glaring defect is found in the nature of its edicts – they are almost all optional. The word "should" appears 53 times in the document, while "must" appears just six times:

https://ballsandstrikes.org/ethics-accountability/supreme-court-code-of-conduct-hilariously-fake/

Of those six "musts," two are not pertinent to ethical questions (they pertain to the requirement for a justice to get prior approval before getting paid for teaching gigs).

When the code of conduct was rolled out, the court and its apologists pointed out that it was modeled on the ethical guidelines that bind lower courts. In the wake of the Thomas revelations, these guidelines were a useful benchmark to measure Thomas's conduct against. The fact that other federal judges would have been severely sanctioned or even fired if they had engaged in the same conduct as Thomas was a powerful argument that Thomas had overstepped the bounds of ethical conduct.

But as Bloomberg Law discovered when they compared the lower courts' codes to the Supremes' draft, the Supremes have gone through those lower court codes and systematically cut nearly every mention of "enforce" from their own draft. They also cut the requirement to "take appropriate action" if a violation is reported.

If you are a bad judge or a bad donor, all of this is good news. Nearly everything that it condemns is merely optional, which means that if a judge can be convinced to ignore a rule, they won't have violated the code. What's more, even widespread rulebreaking doesn't trigger an investigation. That's a very weak security measure indeed.

But it gets worse. The Supremes' code also omit key definitions found in the codes that bind the lower courts. The most important definition to be cut is for "political organization," which the lower courts define expansively as both parties and "entit[ies] whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties." That definition captures "nonprofits, think tanks, lobbying firms, trade associations, grassroots groups" – the whole panoply of organizations whom federal judges must maintain an arm's length distance from in order to preserve their objectivity. Federal judges may not lead, speak at or donate to these organizations.

By omitting this definition, the Supremes open the door to involvement with precisely the kinds of PACs, thinktanks and other influence organizations funded by the billionaires who have benefited so handsomely from the judges' rulings.

What's more, the Supremes carve out an explicit exemption for speaking to "nonprofits, think tanks, lobbying firms, trade associations, grassroots groups," and to serving as a director, trustee or officer of "a nonprofit organization devoted to the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and may assist such an organization in the management and investment of funds."

As Moran points out, this exemption would cover – among other institutions – the far-right Federalist Society, which satisfies all those criteria. That means a Supreme Court justice could sit on the board and raise funds for the FedSoc without raising any issues with this code – not even one of those squishy "shoulds." Nothing in this code would stop Clarence Thomas or Thomas Alito from accepting lavish gifts, private jet rides, or luxury tour buses from billionaires with business before the court:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/justice-thomas-267000-loan-rv-forgiven-senate-democrats-104303972

As Moran writes, these definitional vacuums are a well-understood class of weaknesses in ethics codes. Congress gets a lot of mileage out of this ruse – for example, by narrowly defining "lobbying" to exclude things that most people understand that term to mean, Congress engage in improperly close relations with lobbyists while still maintaining that they hardly ever talk to a lobbyist at all:

https://www.politico.eu/article/jeff-hauser-opinion-watergate-european-union-qatargate/

The same ruse goes for campaign contributions – if you want to accept a lot of campaign contributions that would fall afoul of ethics rules, just narrow the definition of "campaign contribution" until all the money you're receiving no longer qualifies.

Moran closes by calling on Congress to formulate a real, meaningful code of conduct for the Supremes, one that orders Supreme Court judges not to accept corrupting gifts and to maintain the arm's length neutrality that the rest of the federal judiciary is required to keep. Rather than this new code of conduct constituting proof that SCOTUS can be its own oversight, its gross deficiencies should put to rest any question about whether the Supremes can be trusted to regulate themselves.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/17/red-team-black-robes/#security-theater

Image: Senate Democrats (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Supreme_Court_Building,_July_21,_2020.jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[soberscientistlife]

Judge Kaplan schooling Trump's attorney

[tomorrowusa]

Right now is the time to get involved in the defeat of America's most dangerous enemy since the Cold War.

The traditional election season, starting on Labor Day, is a thing of the distant political past. And considering the magnitude of the threat to democracy, even waiting for the end of the primary season may be too late.

The worst president in our history is, arguably, stronger within the leadership ranks of the Republican Party than he has ever been. He is now the most dangerous presidential candidate in U.S. history. As a consequence, the great question before the rest of us is whether enough of us are ready to do whatever is necessary to defeat this threat as we have all those that have come before. Sadly, there is reason to believe that this time we may not meet the challenge. Right now, Donald Trump is one of two people who could be our next president. The race, at the moment, between him and President Joe Biden, is too close to call.

The people with their heads up their ass over Biden's age are either hypocrites or dissemblers. On Inauguration Day 2025, Donald Trump will be 95.66% of Joe Biden's age. And Trump will also be older in January of 2025 than Biden was upon assuming office in 2021. Biden may have a lifelong stutter but he is still grounded in reality in a way the narcissistic nepo baby Donald Trump never was.

Joe Biden by any objective metric has been one of the most successful presidents in modern U.S. history. He has led the creation of more major legislative initiatives benefiting the American people than any president in 60 years. He oversaw the creation of more than 14 million jobs during his first three years in office. He has brought down inflation and reduced the prices of vital medicines to affordable levels. He has restored American leadership worldwide, expanded our vital alliances like NATO, and stood up to our enemies. All presidents face challenges and make missteps. But it is hard to deny that in the wake of the U.S. economic recovery, the passage of the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the CHIPs and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the expansion of NATO, and the creation of new Indo-Pacific alliances, Biden’s record is formidable. That a president with this record is in a horse race with a candidate who is a menace to the country, who led an insurrection, who is a pathological liar whom courts have found to be a fraud and a rapist, and who has no real ideas, no credible policy proposals, no record of actually ever achieving anything for the American people is chilling.

In normal times, over 40% of US voters would NOT pick a notorious sex offender for president. But these are not normal times.

You would have thought that the sight of mobs carrying Trump flags and weapons and chanting for the death of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, would have been alarm enough. You would have thought the same of Trump’s Access Hollywood tape, in which he confessed his impulse to abuse women. You would have thought the two dozen women who accused him of abuse would have had that effect. Even if none of those things were quite warning enough, you would have thought the findings in the E. Jean Carroll case would have been enough. After all, respected federal judge Lew Kaplan wrote, “The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused—indeed, raped—Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established and is binding in this case.” It should have been enough. But so far, it has not been.

And who would have thought that the party of Ronald Reagan is now led by a stooge of the Evil Empire?

You would have thought that Trump reaching out on national television to our Russian adversaries for aid during the 2016 campaign would have been enough. You would have thought the conclusive findings of every major U.S. intelligence agency that Russia sought to aid Trump’s campaign would have been enough. You would have thought that Robert Mueller’s finding 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump would have been enough. You would have thought Trump kowtowing to Vladimir Putin and taking his word over that of our intelligence and law enforcement communities would have been enough. You would have thought his illegally withholding aid to Ukraine to seek dirt on Joe Biden would have been enough. You would have thought his impeachment for that would have been enough.

Are you willing to spend more time and money than in previous election cycles to end a major threat to Western democracy and to undermine homegrown fascism for at least the rest of this decade?

So, ask yourself, is that enough to make you do more than you have done? Is that enough to commit for the next 10 months to do more than you have ever done during an election year? To give more? To canvas more? To spread the word more? To help get voters to the polls? To ensure every member of your family, your friends, your co-workers do the same? The stakes are too high to do less than everything you can.

I rarely quote Margaret Thatcher and would probably disagree with at least 90% of her views. But she did know something about winning elections and combating the USSR. If she was good for just one thing, it's for this observation in a speech made in her retirement.

[N]o battles are ever finally won; you have to go on winning them by example and by being prepared to defend your way of life against those who would attack it.

If we learn just one thing from the Trump threat, it's that we can never rest on our past laurels. A slacker democracy is one which will not outlast a determined demagogue.

Civic involvement by pro-democracy citizens is absolutely necessary to maintain freedom.

[gusty-wind]

Transcript from E. Jean Carroll Trial Reveals Judge Kaplan’s Contempt for Trump.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

The FBI and NYPD are investigating a letter containing a death threat and white powder that was mailed to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office is investigating former President Donald Trump, law-enforcement sources told NBC News.

The letter was addressed to Bragg and said, “ALVIN: I AM GOING TO KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!” the sources said. It contained a small amount of white powder.

There were no evacuations or injuries, officials said.

In a statement, the DA's office said the letter “was immediately contained and that the NYPD Emergency Service Unit and the NYC Department of Environmental Protection determined there was no dangerous substance.”

Markings on the envelope indicate it was mailed from Orlando, Florida earlier this week, the sources said. It was postmarked on Tuesday, the sources said.

The letter comes in the wake of Trump announcing — falsely — that he would be arrested in the probe this past Tuesday and that people should "protest." His rhetoric has become more heated in the days since, including warning on his social media website early Friday of "potential death and destruction" if the DA indicts him.

Russian email accounts sent a series of hoax bomb threats targeting the Manhattan district attorney and court buildings for three straight days this week amid a grand jury investigation of former President Donald Trump.

The unsubstantiated threats, now under investigation by the New York Police Department and FBI, were emailed to local government officials at a Manhattan community board, according to police. They came from Russian email addresses in the early morning hours on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, listing government buildings and schools as the targets of alleged pipe bombs, according to the local board official who received them.

"The FBI told me that they appear to be coming from Russia," said Susan Stetzer, district manager of Community Board 3, who read the emails to Law360 Friday. The board received four email threats over the three days, often sent from @mail.ru domains under different names, she said. The NYPD confirmed the board was the recipient of the original bomb threat on Tuesday.

The FBI declined to comment.

Separately on Friday, a suspicious white powder was delivered to the offices of District Attorney Alvin Bragg in an envelope marked "Alvin," according to the NYPD.

A spokesperson for the district attorney said that "it was immediately contained and that the NYPD Emergency Service Unit and the NYC Department of Environmental Protection determined there was no dangerous substance."

The emailed bomb threats did not mention Trump or the grand jury mulling indicting him for an illegal hush money payment allegedly designed to tip the 2016 election in his favor, the local official said. Still, they used language that echoed his recent attacks on the case, referring to "the downfall of our country" and stating, "You people are destroying America."

The grand jury is considering a possible indictment of Trump on charges that he directed his former attorney Michael Cohen to pay adult film actress Stormy Daniels $130,000 to bury her claims of an affair before the 2016 presidential election, and covered up Cohen's reimbursement as legal fees.

An FBI and special counsel investigation of interference in the 2016 election found that Russia engaged in a sprawling online campaign to manipulate public perceptions in favor of Trump. The investigation found that Trump did not conspire with Russia.

Stetzer said she first reported the bomb threats Tuesday morning by contacting local police precincts and dialing 911. Since then, she has been in regular contact with the FBI.

"Now when I get them, which I haven't today, I just forward it to the FBI," Stetzer said late Friday morning.

In response to questions, NYPD said it had one threat on file for Tuesday of an email "sent from an unidentified individual who stated they are placing various explosive devices at locations throughout the city. There are no arrests and the investigation is ongoing."

Beginning last weekend, Trump called for protests of Bragg's investigation with increasingly heated language as he criticized the possible charges against him and incorrectly predicted he would be arrested on Tuesday.

Among a dozen posts on Truth Social about Bragg posted Thursday, Trump called the district attorney an "animal" and "human scum," compared him to Joseph Stalin and the Gestapo, and said, "He is doing the work of Anarchists and the Devil, who want our Country to fail." Trump also posted a link with an image of him holding a baseball bat beside an image of Bragg's head.

"You're still allowed to self-defend in this Country!" Trump posted Wednesday, additionally claiming that anti-fascist "lunatics" are infiltrating conservative gatherings.

Early Friday morning, Trump said that "potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!"

The New York City bomb threats used similar rhetoric.

A threat sent Thursday that targeted the district attorney's office and schools said: "You people are disgusting degenerates. Fuck you and fuck everything you stand for. You are responsible for the downfall of our country and you will die," Stetzer said, quoting from the email.

One threat Wednesday read: "Evacuate before the bombs go off. You people are destroying America so we will destroy you," according to Stetzer.

Stetzer declined to share the emails directly with Law360.

The threats have led to heightened security at the court buildings in Lower Manhattan, which have included regular sweeps for bombs and a more visible presence of police officers and court officers along with barricades surrounding the entrances to the district attorney's office.

The district attorney's office has declined to comment on the threats.

Meanwhile, a Manhattan federal judge presiding over a writer's civil defamation and rape suit against Trump on Thursday ruled that jurors in the case will remain anonymous, drawing a link between the former president's recent rhetoric and threats to public safety.

"Mr. Trump's quite recent reaction to what he perceived as an imminent threat of indictment by a grand jury sitting virtually next door to this court was to encourage 'protest' and to urge people to 'take our country back.' That reaction reportedly has been perceived by some as incitement to violence," U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote. "And it bears mention that Mr. Trump repeatedly has attacked courts, judges, various law enforcement officials and other public officials, and even individual jurors in other matters."

Judge Kaplan noted, however, that "it matters not whether Mr. Trump incited violence in either a legal or a factual sense. The point is whether jurors will perceive themselves to be at risk."

Joe Tacopina, a criminal defense attorney for Trump, told Law360 Thursday, "We have no problem with the ruling," but declined to comment on the social media posts or threats.