87 Comments
founding

They might be called conservative on some rulings, but corrupt comes to mind first.

Expand full comment

And yet they have found against trump in virtually every case that involves trump.

Expand full comment

Like which cases?

Expand full comment

Like every case that involved fake electors, every case where he tried to overthrow the election. He was like 1 win and 60 losses on the election and Jack Smith has won every decision that went to the Supreme Court. I have been taking note as they happened but I don't remember every one.

Expand full comment

In the cases directly involving Trump you're right, they've either found against or declined to take the case and let the ruling of the lower court (against Trump) stand. Its in the cases with a MAGA agenda, like Dobbs and the gun cases where they have gone out of their way to find a way to rule in Trump's favor.

Expand full comment

I don't trust the Conservative and Right Wing Court!

Expand full comment

Spot on!

Expand full comment

Agree. Even the one was later overturned. My reply is not to you per se. It is more for the thread's Doubting Thomas - Runfastandwin- who rarely if ever engages after any person points out the issues and problems of her/his thinking. Did post same w/that person.

Every. Single. Election. Case. By. Every. Court. In. The. Land. That. Heard. One.

And. Some. Others. Were. So. Legally. Disjointed. They. Were. Rejected. Without. Being Heard.

And that is the 2020 elx cases. Post indictments not a single US District Judge or any panel of any US Circuit Court has sided with Trump's appeals.

I, for one, am glad SCOTUS during this final term prior to the 2024 elx is taking up the obstruction case and is receptive to possibly hearing SC Smith's appeal. Wouldn't trouble me if SCOTUS did the same in the so-called Box Hoax-Document case as well. Wager the same holds for the SC team because it makes legal sense to no matter how SCOTUS rules. And is best for the nation to have the legal and Constitutional issues resolved prior to 2024 elx.

Who in their right mind would want any of them to linger into the next administration no matter who is President? Certainly not the Special Counsel team, SCOTUS, the US Circuit Courts, or the US District Court Judges. And certainly not the nation at large.

As it stands today for Trump and his supporters it has been Ground Hog Day since the Nov 2020 elx. That has to END for this nation to move forward.

Expand full comment

Excellent response! But, as we have learned during the Trump era debacle, facts are Fake News to those cultists.

Expand full comment

Every. Single. Election. Case. By. Every. Court. In. The. Land. That. Heard. One.

And. Some. Others. Were. So. Legally. Disjointed. They. Were. Rejected. Without. Being Heard.

And that is the 2020 elx cases. Post indictments not a single US District Judge or any panel of any US Circuit Court has sided with Trump's appeals.

I, for one, am glad SCOTUS during this final term prior to the 2024 elx is taking up the obstruction case and is receptive to possibly hearing SC Smith's appeal. Wouldn't trouble me if SCOTUS did the same in the so-called Box Hoax-Document case as well. Wager the same holds for the SC team because it makes legal sense to no matter how SCOTUS rules. And is best for the nation to have the legal and Constitutional issues resolved prior to 2024 elx.

Who in their right mind would want any of them to linger into the next administration no matter who is President? Certainly not the Special Counsel team, SCOTUS, the US Circuit Courts, or the US District Court Judges. And certainly not the nation at large.

As it stands today for Trump and his supporters it has been Ground Hog Day since the Nov 2020 elx. That has to END for this nation to move forward.

Expand full comment
founding

That phrase “conservative Supreme Court” just doesn’t work for me.

Think back to the Nuremberg Laws that legalized persecution of a targeted minority and justified massive injustices that paved the way for death camps and assorted paraphernalia of genocide.

Strike the euphemism and let the reader supply the explicative.

Expand full comment

Heather Cox Richardson wrote in her December 12 post: "The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether it will hear the case [Jack Smith's appeal]. So far, Justice Clarence Thomas refuses to recuse himself, even though his wife Ginni was deeply involved in the attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. His refusal suggests that the Supreme Court’s new ethics rules are as toothless as their opponents charged."

Expand full comment

Of course they are. Where are the consequences?

Looking...

Still looking...

Expand full comment

well, it sure didn't take very long for that toothlessness to manifest itself, did it?

Expand full comment

A conservative supreme court? How about a corrupt bought and paid for supreme court.

Expand full comment

If the thoroughly corrupt SCOTUS majority tosses this charge Jack Smith should amend the Trump indictment to include insurrection and seditious conspiracy. All the evidence points to the fact that he, along with unindicted co-conspirators like Stone, Giuliani and Flynn are at least as guilty as the Proud Boys that have already been convicted.

Expand full comment

my sense is that JS wants to keep things very simple. for now.

Expand full comment

Never forget, the old white men in suits who send the younger masses to war rarely pay for it.

Expand full comment

Sadly, tragically, way too true. But I guess we can hope that Kissinger, Nixon and others are burning in Satan's realm for all eternity.

Expand full comment

In no way is this a “conservative” court. Reactionary, evil, and corrupt more closely define its GOP members.

Expand full comment

Agree. The court is a disgrace. Alito is a doctrinaire Italian Catholic who could never, IMHO, vote objectively on any case involving abortion. His religion informs his beliefs. Kavanaugh acted like a belligerent frat boy in his confirmation hearings. Why? Because he was told, or guessed, that irate, bad boy behavior would endear him to Trump. The nomination of Clarence Thomas was a very cynical move by Bush #1 to get brownie points for nominating a black jurist. Thomas is a deeply angry Black man who harbors vengeful wrath against the Dems (I forget the number) who, knowing of his legal mediocrity, voted against his confirmation. The Anita Hill hearings were a travesty, and he was clearly lying and she was clearly not. No high minded woman (which she is) would put herself through that horrible public event if she were making it up.

We need eminent jurists on that bench, not political hacks.

Expand full comment

Extremely disturbing news.

Expand full comment

Not a "very conservative court" but a very CORRUPT court."

Expand full comment

A synonym these days.

Expand full comment
founding

Although the Court has already shown its colors, especially in Dobbs, the slate of cases before it in this session will likely define it for the history books. It’s make or break time, IMO, for its credibility and current structure, which has to be changed. Some of the nine must know that. Thomas and Alito will probably go for broke on fascism. Are there three more?

Expand full comment

Richard, "credibility" for this SC is already irretrievably lost.

Expand full comment

We need to expand the court to 13 justices!

Expand full comment

Since diversity is an important issue in many arenas, shouldn’t diversity also apply to the Supreme Court even as it concerns religion?

Currently, our Supreme Court is comprised of 6 Catholics, 2 Protestants, and 1 Jew.

This explains their decisions.

Expand full comment

I am referring more to Roe vs Wade

Expand full comment

Since when did the Justices receive their M.D. degree? They are not physicians and have no right to make these reproductive decisions! They are not doctors! I thought we had Freedom of Religion?

Expand full comment

They are the current "Court of last resort" on every important legal question concerning health care policy decisions in any way funded by the state, the government. That's our constitutional system, so we need to deal with it as it is and then improve it - you just mentioned "packing the court," I've been urging that for five years now, hoping the idea would gain wider currency.

That this court consistently gets it wrong on reproductive freedom for women (and hypothetically for men, in some other cases) has nothing to do with having an M.D., as is proven by the undeniable fact that even if they all nine of them had medical degrees, their 5-4 decisions would still be bogus as hell - "bogus" being the vernacular for some legal euphemism like "fundamentally flawed."

Dobbs reversed Roe v. Wade, and an expanded Supreme Court can reverse Dobbs, having no medicos on such a court as a supposed weakness to the contrary notwithstanding!

Expand full comment

The right-wing line is that abortion is murder. You don't have to have an MD to be against murder.

Expand full comment

It's not a human being yet as it is a fetus and can't live outside the womb. There is also a religious component. Not everyone believes this that it is murder. I thought we were supposed to have freedom of religion.

Expand full comment

The point is that some people do believe that aborting a potential human being is murder. As their slogan goes, "abortion stops a beating heart." Someone who believes that isn't going to compromise. And "freedom of religion" isn't absolute. The Church of Latter-day Saints may believe that it's OK for a man to have multiple wives, but U.S. law says otherwise.

Expand full comment

People don't have the right to tell others what to believe and what to do! If they believe Abortion is wrong so don't have an abortion, but don't tell someone else what to believe. Women still are treated terribly and not equal to men! The case with Kate Cox in Texas is that her baby will not survive and she was forced to suffer! Not right! I hope she is OK! I'm Jewish and I have different beliefs!

Expand full comment

You are 100% correct!!!👌

Expand full comment

It may not explain as much as you think. Sonia Sotomayor is a Catholic. Neil Gorsuch, who is nothing to write home about, is an Episcopalian (albeit raised Catholic). Since three of the four women on the Court often vote together, I surmise that sex has something to do with it. The fact that a majority of the justices are Catholic MEN -- yes, I believe that has something to do with their decisions, and not just in overturning Roe.

Expand full comment

After Dobbs was decided, Alito — who wrote the majority opinion… or his clerks did… —said that abortion was “barbaric.” What’s barbaric is a bunch of men making decisions about abortion. THAT is barbaric.

Expand full comment

In every decision they have made, as far as I know, that concerns Donald Trump they have found against Donald Trump, so I wouldn't worry.

Expand full comment

From what I understand Smith has filed directly to the SCOTUS, bypassing the circuit court, to decide on Trump's presidential immunity claim along with his ridiculous double jeopardy contention, stating that it was urgent that these issues be decided immediately.

It is a good sign that the Court agreed that it is urgent. If they were planning on finding for Trump there is clearly no urgency since all he is trying to do is delay the entire process. I predict the Court will find in favor of the DOJ by a vote of 7 to zero.

Expand full comment
Dec 13, 2023·edited Dec 13, 2023

Nah, maybe seven to two if we are lucky. Ginni longs for Fascism so Thomas will vote with his wife. He will not recuse himself. He works for the man.

Expand full comment
founding

Why the zero? Thomas and Alito will side with *Rump. The best we can hope for is 7-2, and maybe 6-3 if Gorsuch wants a king.

Expand full comment

Not sure the Supremes could "choose to define “benefit” or “actions” or even “corrupt purpose” any way they want, and one or more definitions might be used to exclude Fischer’s and Trump’s conduct,"

as "any way they want" is the last thing this court wants to do - they want to write a majority opinion, ex hypothesi, that might justify letting Fischer off the hook, sure, but which the courts all around the country can apply as precedent without having the opinion come back to haunt them at lightspeed - like within 2024, no less - by being used by left wing and women's rights protesters, for example, to justify acts that would then be supported by the precedent.

But everything else LKTIV is arguing is going on here makes complete sense, Trump's lawyers are going to keep seizing on any excuse to delay-delay-delay, hoping Trump wins the presidency, and that the victory lets him defeat the entire purpose of the criminal indictments.

Back to the openly fascist-authoritarian attempt at The Clampdown, in other words.

Expand full comment

In the midst of horrible and potentially more horrible news, ya gotta hand it to Michael Cohen's lawyers for introducing some comic relief. The judge he wants to spring him from further prison time has accused his lawyers of citing nonexistent precedents—possibly as hallucinated by AI.

Expand full comment

Hoping ∆rump runs off at the mouth (and text) about "his justices" like he used to go on about "his generals". Maybe being described like the personal possession of a wannabe dictator will put their future legacy into perspective and influence their thinking.

Expand full comment

Again, superb statutory analysis. Did you secretly go to law school? Or was whatever instruction you got in military law at West Point that good?

Expand full comment

I get that Biden doesn't want to do a gd thing about it, but other Democrats should be advocating loudly every damn day to expand (or contract or even eliminate IDGAF) SCROTUS due to the massive bribery going on there if nothing else.

Expand full comment
founding

Reading thar Mr. Fischer said, "Can’t vote if they can’t breathe ... lol" made me hope that some judicial authority tells him, "Can't have a life if you're in prison, or maybe even solitary ... lol."

As for defining things for legal purposes, it would seem we're back to "what the meaning of "is" is.

Life in these United States has become simply awful.

Expand full comment