Supreme Court

New Documentary: Sexual Assault Allegations Against Kavanaugh Were Never Fully Investigated By FBI

A new documentary will debut Friday night at the Sundance Film Festival that suggests the FBI’s so-called “investigation” of sexual assault allegations made against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh “fell woefully short” and appear to have been little more than a cursory look at whether or not Kavanaugh did indeed attack multiple women.

IndieWire reports that the film, entitled “Justice” is largely cloaked in secrecy.

Sundance has added a secret documentary about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh from director Doug Liman to its lineup, Sundance programmers announced Thursday.

The film “Justice” is intended to screen on Friday night at 8:30 p.m. MT as a special premiere at Park Avenue Theater followed by a Press & Industry screening at 10 p.m. MT, and IndieWire has learned the film is also available for acquisition.

Liman, who is known for films like “Swingers,” “Edge of Tomorrow,” “The Bourne Identity,” and more, self-financed the project and is making his documentary feature debut with “Justice.”

Kim Yutani, festival director of programming, explained why “Justice” had been added at the last minute:

“This is a film that focuses on the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh and the investigation that ensued. It is a very powerful documentary that we felt was important to add. We saw it practically yesterday, and it’s a film that I think challenges existing narratives, I think it asks tough questions, and I think it provokes conversations.”

While Liman was a bit more specific in his discussion of his documentary, he stopped short of revealing the outcome of the investigation his film undertook.

“It shouldn’t be this hard to have an open and honest conversation about whether or not a Justice on the Supreme Court assaulted numerous women as a young man. Thanks to this fantastic investigative team and the brave souls who trusted us with their stories, ‘Justice’ picks up where the FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh fell woefully short. The film examines our judicial process and the institutions behind it, highlighting bureaucratic missteps and political powergrabs that continue to have an outsized impact on our nation today. Sundance gave me and countless other independent filmmakers our big breaks, so it’s especially meaningful for me to return with my first documentary.”

Kavanaugh was accused by women who knew him in both high school and college of taking inappropriate advantage of them, usually when he was under the influence of alcohol, with the Washington Post laying out all of the allegations against him in a 2018 article.

The central charge against Kavanaugh — that he sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford while intoxicated during a party — lacks this element. Ford said she kept quiet about the incident until recent years. But she has provided witnesses who say she told them about the allegation before Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, two other women have also emerged with similar allegations against Kavanaugh, also in the context of heavy drinking. He has adamantly denied that he ever attacked any woman.

Did the U.S. Senate place a serial sexual assaulter on the highest court in the land? Maybe we’ll finally get an answer to that question.

Supreme Court

Attorney Uses Clarence Thomas’ Own Words To Humiliate The SCOTUS Justice

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas got reminded of his own absurd judicial philosophy during oral arguments on a case dealing with federal and state election rules.

The case is Moore v. Harper, which CNN reports originated as the result of a law in North Carolina.

The North Carolina GOP legislature … argues that state constitutions and state courts have little or no authority to impose limits on how state legislatures craft their rules for federal elections.

The controversial “independent state legislature” theory is being used by Republican lawmakers to argue that state courts could not redraw the congressional map the legislature sought to enact in 2021.

A version of theory was promoted by allies of former President Donald Trump during their attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Arguing on behalf of Common Cause in opposition to the North Carolina legislature was former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, who noted that the high court had once ruled “states rights” on the issue of abortion and then said such a standard didn’t apply to regulations on guns.

Thomas tried to argue against Katyal:

“You said this court normally doesn’t second-guess state court’s interpretation of their own Constitution. Would you say that in the case of Baker v. Carr?”

Katyal replied:

“I don’t think you declare it unconstitutional. Any number of things. To say they got their own Constitution wrong is just a matter of interpretation.”

That led Thomas to inquire:

“Let me ask you this. It may be a bit unfair. If the state legislature had been very, very generous to minority voters in their redistricting and the state supreme court said under their state constitution that this was — it violated their own state Constitution of North Carolina, would you be making the same argument?”



Later, Katyal again used Thomas’ own flawed reasoning to prove that conservatives on the high court talk out of both sides of their mouths:

“The North Carolina court is interpreting the elections clauses and powers and the question is whether or not they have misread it or not and so I think that’s the source of the substantive — alleged substantive violation here. The spirit of your question, for 233 years, this court’s never gotten involved and said, hey, we’re going to, you know, say the North Carolina court got it wrong or their provision was too abstract for enforcement or anything like that. Rather, this court has always stayed on the sidelines, let the state process unfold subject to that other part of the trident check, Congress, in the second half of the elections cause.”

If the six conservative justices rule in favor of North Carolina, it will be the end of free and fair elections in the United States. Each state will be able to set their own election standards and disenfranchise anyone they want. They’ll even be able to overrule the will of the voters and choose the winners and losers in each election based solely on political party.

Clarence Thomas’ bullshit is finally starting to catch up with him.


Social Media Supreme Court WTF?!

Samuel Alito Gets Destroyed On Social Media For His ‘Joke’ About Black Kids Wearing KKK Robes

During oral arguments Monday before the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito make a tasteless and disturbing “joke” about black kids wearing KKK robes that quickly lit up social media with anger and revulsion.

According to HuffPost, Alito’s comment came during questions from the justices for attorneys.

While hearing the case of a Christian graphic artist in Colorado who says designing wedding websites for gay couples is against her faith, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked attorney Kristen Waggoner whether, following her arguments, a hypothetical photographer would be able to refuse taking photos of a white Santa Claus with Black children.

Waggoner, who is representing the designer, responded that the photographer would be able to refuse taking the photos.

That led Alito to ask if a black Santa could refuse to take photos with a black child wearing a KKK robe.

Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson responded, “Ku Klux Klan outfits are not protected characteristics under public accommodation laws.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor then joined the debate:

“Presumably, that would be the same Ku Klux Klan outfit regardless whether if the child was black or white or any other characteristic.”

Alito then dropped his “joke” in response to Sotomayor’s comment:

“You do see a lot of Black children in Ku Klux Klan outfits all the time.”

But Alito wasn’t finished. He later tried to humiliate Justice Elena Kagan by suggesting that she was familiar with an online dating site.

Alito’s sense of humor didn’t sit well with many on Twitter.

LGBT Issues Supreme Court

Justice Jackson Has The Perfect Question When An Attorney Urges SCOTUS To Allow LGBTQ Discrimination

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today in a case involving the rights of private businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ Americans on “religious grounds,” and there are fears that conservatives on the high court may allow discrimination if the defendant claims it violates his or her beliefs.

Reuters reports on the case:

The wedding websites that Colorado-based web designer Lorie Smith would like to create for clients might offer ceremony details, pictures, a story about the couple and a biblical quote celebrating how through marriage they “become one flesh.”

They would not, however, show same-sex nuptials.

Smith, an evangelical Christian who believes marriage is only between a man and a woman, has taken her fight to refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples and to advertise that policy to the U.S. Supreme Court in a major case to be argued on Monday. Smith is appealing lower court rulings backing Colorado.

During oral arguments, some of the conservative justices did indeed seem included to allow such blatant discrimination, according to CNN.

Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that a businessperson’s objection would not be based on the status of the same-sex couple, but instead, the message the businessperson did not want to send. The question isn’t the “who” Gorsuch said, but the “what.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett told a lawyer for the designer that her “strongest ground” is that the designer’s work is “custom.”

The newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, had a brilliant question for an attorney representing Smith before the court.

“Give me your thoughts on a photography business in a shopping mall during this holiday season that offers a product called Scenes with Santa, and this business wants to express its own view of nostalgia about Christmases past by reproducing classic 1940s and 1950s Santa scenes…because they’re trying to capture the feelings of a certain era, their policy is that only white children can be photographed with Santa in this way, because that’s how they view the scenes with Santa that they’re trying to depict.”

The attorney desperately attempted to differentiate between the two:

“Because in the photograph itself, the objection is not contained in that photograph. But in addition, I think it’s important to remind the court –”

When Jackson countered that the two instances are exactly the same, the attorney replied, “The specific objection that you’re including is not necessarily in that photograph, but even if it were, this court has protected vile, awful, reprehensible, violent speech in the past.”

How exactly is it “speech” to refuse to set up a website for someone just because the potential client is LGBTQ? That’s discrimination and it wouldn’t be allowed based on the color of a person’s skin, as Justice Jackson noted. But the current right-wing 6-3 majority on the court may allow it to happen with their approval. Yet another reason we need to expand the court and make sure these six extremist judges don’t take away every right we have.

Elections GOP Supreme Court

SCOTUS To Lindsey: You WILL Testify In Georgia Election Fraud Case

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) thought he had found a way to avoid having to testify in a criminal investigation of his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election: Get the protection of the United States Supreme Court.

That strategy worked for a week, as Justice Clarence Thomas issued a stay and agreed to present the matter to the full court.

But on Tuesday, the other eight justices weighed in and ordered Graham to obey the subpoena he received from a Georgia grand jury impaneled by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, The Washington Post reports.

Graham had claimed that his actions were legitimate legislative activity protected by the Constitution’s “speech or debate clause” and that he was protected from disclosing them to a grand jury.

But Tuesday’s unsigned order said lower courts already had protected him from questioning that related to his official duties.

“The lower courts assumed that the informal investigative fact-finding that Senator Graham assertedly engaged in constitutes legislative activity protected by the Speech or Debate Clause … and they held that Senator Graham may not be questioned about such activities,” the order said.

Graham has until Nov. 17 to comply with the subpoena or face being charged with contempt of court and other offenses.

The South Carolina Republican reportedly tried to help his buddy, former president Donald Trump, convince Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to intervene in the state’s vote count and declare Trump the winner of the Peach State’s 16 electoral votes, with the disgraced ex-president telling Raffensperger:

 “So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”

Graham, on the other hand, asked Raffensperger if there was any evidence of voter fraud that would allow him to declare the state’s ballots invalid:

In their conversation, Graham questioned Raffensperger about the state’s signature-matching law and whether political bias could have prompted poll workers to accept ballots with nonmatching signatures, according to Raffensperger. Graham also asked whether Raffensperger had the power to toss all mail ballots in counties found to have higher rates of nonmatching signatures, Raffensperger said.

Raffensperger said he was stunned that Graham appeared to suggest that he find a way to toss legally cast ballots. Absent court intervention, Raffensperger doesn’t have the power to do what Graham suggested because counties administer elections in Georgia.

“It sure looked like he was wanting to go down that road,” Raffensperger said.

Graham called Raffensperger’s allegations “ridiculous,” but will now have to make those denials under oath, which could leave him open to charges of perjury if he chooses to lie instead of testifying truthfully.