SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[skinsmarydu]

Scumbag.

[China]

Besides not being reported in a timely manner as is required, I imagine he may have some tax liabilities that he failed to report.  

[The Evil Genius]

These MAGA judges sure do pick winners.

 

 

[China]

Justice Alito Caught on Tape Discussing How Battle for America ‘Can’t Be Compromised’

 

Justice Samuel Alito spoke candidly about the ideological battle between the left and the right — discussing the difficulty of living “peacefully” with ideological opponents in the face of “fundamental” differences that “can’t be compromised.” He endorsed what his interlocutor described as a necessary fight to “return our country to a place of godliness.” And Alito offered a blunt assessment of how America’s polarization will ultimately be resolved: “One side or the other is going to win.”
 

Alito made these remarks in conversation at the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual dinner on June 3, a function that is known to right-wing activists as an opportunity to buttonhole Supreme Court justices. His comments were recorded by Lauren Windsor, a liberal documentary filmmaker. Windsor attended the dinner as a dues-paying member of the society under her real name, along with a colleague. She asked questions of the justice as though she were a religious conservative. 

 

The justice’s unguarded comments highlight the degree to which Alito makes little effort to present himself as a neutral umpire calling judicial balls and strikes, but rather as a partisan member of a hard-right judicial faction that’s empowered to make life-altering decisions for every American. 

 

The recording, which was provided exclusively to Rolling Stone, captures Windsor approaching Alito at the event and reminding him that they spoke at the same function the year before, when she asked him a question about political polarization. In the intervening year, she tells the justice, her views on the matter had changed. “I don’t know that we can negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for the polarization to end,” Windsor says. “I think that it’s a matter of, like, winning.” 

 

“I think you’re probably right,” Alito replies. “On one side or the other — one side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working — a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised. So it’s not like you are going to split the difference.”

 

 

Similar questions Windsor asked of Chief Justice John Roberts at the same event elicited a far different response. (George W. Bush nominated both men to the Supreme Court in 2005; at the time, Roberts famously used a metaphor of a baseball umpire to describe his judicial philosophy.) 

 

In an audio recording of that exchange, Roberts takes issue with Windsor’s assertion that the nation is unusually polarized, historically, citing the high tensions of the Vietnam War era, for example. He also insists that the Supreme Court’s current role is not exceptional. “The idea that the court is in the middle of a lot of tumultuous stuff going on is nothing new,” Roberts says.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

Martha-Ann is all about them flags

[Fergasun]

Wowie.  Wowie. 

 

She's gonna fly that flag now!!! 

 

Alito and Thomas are definately disqualified. Why are the Alito's even at such a partisan event?  She's got that Fox News brain rot.  

 

"The power to do the things necessary..."

 

 

 

 

[Jumbo]

There are other writeups on this newest alito bs that will keep this thing going into next week. The more the non-right-wing segments of the voting population gets the full picture of just who these jackanapes on the bench are, the better. I give Roberts proper credit for his responses to the same questions, even as right wing as he is.

 

Interestingly, the two appointees most offensive to the ideal were appointed by George the 2nd, not Moron Don. Of course George 2 was only playing a figurehead role in most important matters.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/10/alito-wife-supreme-court-recordings-00162610

 

 

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/samuel-alito-supreme-court-justice-recording-tape-battle-1235036470/

 

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2024/06/10/congress/whitehouses-latest-alito-push-00162488

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

Interestingly, the two appointees most offensive to the ideal were appointed by George the 2nd, not Moron Don. Of course George 2 was only playing a figurehead role in most important matters.

 

As was Don, at least for SCOTUS. 

 

Remember, i think it was at least twice where Donald nominated some idiot. And Skippy just didn't schedule votes for them, and waited for Donald to pick one of the people the Heritage Foundation sent to him. 

[samy316]

12 hours ago, Fergasun said:

Wowie.  Wowie. 

 

She's gonna fly that flag now!!! 

 

Alito and Thomas are definately disqualified. Why are the Alito's even at such a partisan event?  She's got that Fox News brain rot.  

 

"The power to do the things necessary..."

 

 

 

 

 

Disqualified from what exactly?  You think they give a damn about pretense at this stage?  They can do anything they want, and nothing will be done about it.  People can cry and protest, but at the end of the day, they won't be impeached, and the courts won't be expanded.  They're set, until a Republican gets elected, in which case both Alito & Thomas will retire, and younger more evil versions of both are nominated and selected to the bench.

[China]

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse requests information about Alito's 'improper' WSJ interview

 

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary Committee, requested information from Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito tied to an interview with The Wall Street Journal last year in which Alito questioned whether Congress has the power to impose ethics rules on the Supreme Court.

 

In the letter made public Friday, Whitehouse, D-R.I., accused Alito of offering in an interview with the paper last year "an improper opinion regarding a question that might come before the Court" amid an ethical dilemma related to donors' funding of undisclosed gifts to Supreme Court justices.

 

According to the Journal interview, published July 28, Alito had asserted that Congress lacked authority to regulate the high court. “No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period," Alito told the newspaper at the time.

 

Alito's interview appeared weeks after the Journal published his commentary rebutting a ProPublica report detailing his failure to disclose a fishing trip in Alaska with a Republican billionaire.

 

The interview, Whitehouse noted, was conducted by David B. Rivkin, an attorney representing Leonard Leo, who, according to ProPublica's report, coordinated Alito's 2008 trip with GOP donor Robin Arkley II.

 

Whitehouse argued that Alito’s assertions in the interview were made “to the benefit of yourself, as a recipient of undisclosed gifts that are the subject of our investigation.”

 

He further accused Alito of taking part in the interview "at the behest" of Rivkin, who was challenging the committee’s investigative efforts.

 

“From the outside, it looks like the attorney recruited you to prop up his legal case against our investigation, using the interview to advance the argument he and several colleagues were making,” Whitehouse wrote. “The interview seemed both solicited and timed for effect in the ongoing dispute.” 

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Quote

“No provision in the Constitution gives them the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period," Alito told the newspaper at the time.

 

Congress needs to demonstrate to Alito how incorrect he is by impeaching him.

[The Evil Genius]

 

[China]

Alito Heard in New Audio Recording Slamming News Outlet For Reporting on Ethics

 

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has been caught on a newly surfaced audio recording criticizing the news outlet ProPublica for its coverage of ethical concerns within the highest court of the land.

 

Alito asserted that the reporting stemmed from political motivations, claiming, “They don’t like our decisions.”

 

The audio, unveiled by liberal documentarian Lauren Windsor, captured Alito’s remarks during a Supreme Court Historical Society event on June 3.

 

Responding to a question on why the Supreme Court faces increased scrutiny from the media, Alito pointed to ideological biases, stating, “They don’t like our decisions, and they don’t like how they anticipate we may decide some cases that are coming up. That’s the beginning of the end of it.”

 

He further accused well-funded ideological groups of spearheading attacks on the Court, singling out ProPublica for substantial financial backing. Alito criticized the outlet’s extensive investigations into justices, including Clarence Thomas and himself, suggesting a concerted effort to scrutinize every aspect of their lives.

 

“ProPublica gets a lot of money, and they have spent a fortune investigating Clarence Thomas, for example. You know, everything he’s ever done in his entire life.”

 

“And they’ve done some of that to me, too. They look for any little thing they can find, and they try to make something out of it,” he added.

 

ProPublica’s Pulitzer Prize-winning reporting shed light on gifts and travel perks received by justices from wealthy benefactors, prompting Alito to defend his actions in an opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Larry]

"The people who accurately reported on me stating that I view my role on SCOTUS as a political crusader have political motives."

[China]

Sen. Lindsey Graham says he will block Democrats' effort to unanimously pass Supreme Court ethics bill

 

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, plans to block an effort by Senate Democrats to unanimously pass a Supreme Court ethics bill Wednesday on the Senate floor.

 

“I will object,” Graham, R-S.C., told NBC News.

 

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who chairs the Judiciary Committee, said earlier Tuesday that he would make a unanimous consent request to pass Supreme Court ethics legislation that the panel advanced last July.

 

Graham's objection means the bill won't be able to move forward, because any senator can block a request.

 

It isn't clear whether the measure will come up for a vote under the normal process, but Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he’s considering it.

 

Even before Graham made his comments, Democrats doubted the legislation would advance. “I think I know the outcome, but we’re going to go through the exercise to make sure that both parties are in the record,” Durbin told reporters Tuesday afternoon.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[The Evil Genius]

These people seem swell.

 

https://newrepublic.com/post/182635/clarence-thomas-son-mark-martin-jail-relationship

 

“I haven’t really heard much from them in a long time,” Martin said of his adoptive parents. “I tried to communicate with them a couple of times, but I’ve never gotten any response.”

 

In 2007, Thomas said in an interview with C-Span that he and his wife were raising Martin, then 16, “as a son.” Martin would attend military prep school Randolph-Macon Academy and Hidden Lake Academy, a residential therapeutic treatment center plagued by allegations of abuse, thanks to Crow, a Randolph-Macon alumnus, paying the tuition at both schools. Thomas did not report these payments on his financial statements.

 

“I guess they looked into Randolph-Macon Academy because Harlan Crow actually graduated from there, so I guess that was behind their decision to send me there—and then apparently he helped finance the HLA trip, too,” Martin told Business Insider, saying that he didn’t know at the time that Crow paid for his education.

 

ProPublica reported last year that Thomas had enjoyed luxury vacations on Crow’s dime almost every year, and Thomas failed to report those trips until just last week. In addition, the publication reported on Crow funding the renovation of the home where Thomas’s mother still lives as well as Martin’s private school tuition, estimating that the school fees likely exceeded $150,000.

 

Martin told Business Insider that he enjoyed a privileged childhood, traveling to more than 20 countries and spending summers wakeboarding or waterskiing. He also remembers babysitting Crow’s son when their families went on vacation together. But Martin said that when he began high school, Clarence and Ginni Thomas “just didn’t have time to deal with” him anymore and sent him away to boarding schools. After his freshman year of high school began, Martin said he rarely saw his great-uncle and great-aunt.

Edited June 13 by The Evil Genius

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[China]

It's too bad our government is so broken that he can't be impeached even though he should be.

 

Why the DOJ and IRS don't go after him for violations in income/tax reporting I don't know.

[tshile]

Could you imagine the ****storm if they went after him right now 😂 

 

This is why people attacking institutions in his first few years, which Trump started, were allowed to slide too easy. 
 

it’s the groundwork for rendering those institutions useless. 
 

if it’s your decision to make, there’s quite a few people (including you and your family) that’s lives change to include death threats and other forms of harassment. 
 

it’s a bad situation

Edited June 13 by tshile

[skinsmarydu]

Ari Melber is about to go into a segment about SCOTUS.  He's got clips of various Congresscritters saying stuff in support.  One is Queen Lindsay, in all his glory.  A FORMER JAG OFFICER.  I was screaming at the TV. 

Ari comes back with "This is not a drill." 

LMFAO. 

[The Evil Genius]

In honor of Flag Day today, I hereby propose we hang the Alitos upside down. 😁

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[China]

Here's when the Supreme Court is releasing opinions this week

 

The court is expected to release major decisions about social media rights, immunity for former presidents and an obstruction charge used in Jan. 6 cases.
 

The U.S. Supreme Court added two additional days to release opinions this week with decisions in nearly a dozen cases still pending.

 

According to the court’s website, SCOTUS will now announce decisions on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of this week. Previously, only Wednesday had been scheduled as an opinion day.

 

The court has yet to rule on a number of high-profile cases from this term, among them whether a federal law requiring hospitals that receive Medicare funds to provide abortions in cases of medical emergencies overrules an Idaho state law criminalizing most abortions. Other outstanding cases include a decision on whether the Biden administration censored protected speech on social media and whether to uphold a bankruptcy settlement with the makers of the opioid oxycontin that shields members of the Sackler family, which owns the company, from civil liability.

 

At the top of the SCOTUS watch list, however, is the court’s ruling on whether former President Donald Trump enjoys immunity from prosecution for acts while in office. Trump faces criminal charges in both D.C. and Georgia for alleged crimes committed as part of his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The justices appeared roundly skeptical of his arguments that he should enjoy absolute immunity from all criminal prosecution during oral arguments in April, but also questioned whether they would be endorsing a trend of post-presidency prosecutions.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

Guaranteed they wait until the last minute and release the immunity decision on the final day.  Giving Trump the most delay, and then being gone for any blowback (not that they really seem concerned about what people think of their decisions).