Congress Donald Trump Supreme Court

Jamie Raskin Slams ‘Partisan’ Right-Wing SCOTUS Justices And Recommends A New Workplace For Them

Like millions of Americans who listened to oral arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday on the issue of presidential immunity, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said he was stunned that most of the right-wing justices seemed to believe that a president may have total immunity from criminal acts and therefore can act like a dictator and face no consequences.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “The Reid Out,” Raskin was asked by host Joy Reid about how blatantly partisan the six conservative justices sounded as they questioned attorneys for Special Counsel Jack Smith and former president Donald Trump, HuffPost reports.

“Well, they’re politicians who are not even subject to popular election unlike me,” Raskin replied. “They should move the Supreme Court over to the RNC headquarters because they’re acting like a bunch of partisan operatives.”

Focusing on a question from Justice Samuel Alito suggesting that democracy itself could be endangered if a president isn’t allowed to do anything he wants, no matter whether it’s legal or illegal, Raskin noted, “I mean, for all of American history, we’ve said presidents are subject to criminal prosecution if they commit crimes.”

“Now they say, ‘Well, if you’re really mean to Donald Trump and you hold him accountable the way every other American citizen is accountable, then he’ll really overthrow the government, he’ll really bring out the big guns and we can’t afford that.’ And that’s a kind of masochistic, capitulationism to Donald Trump’s authoritarianism.”

The Founding Fathers rebelled against England and King George III in large part because they were disgusted by the idea that one man could be above the law and rule by fiat and whim. It’s why they declared their independence and formed the United States of America.

Now, however, it appears that some on the Supreme Court are ready to give that same dictatorial power to a American head of state. Jefferson, Madison, and Washington must be spinning in their graves.

Abortion Supreme Court

Ketanji Brown Jackson Swats Down Alito For His Bogus ‘Scientific Knowledge’ Of Abortion

During oral arguments in the Supreme Court case of FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on Tuesday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made it clear to fellow justice Samuel Alito that she wasn’t about to put up with his so-called “scientific knowledge” of abortion or drugs that allow women to exercise their reproductive freedom.

The Daily Beast notes that the case involves the drug mifepristone, a drug that can be used by women in the privacy of their homes and is now the method of choice for 63% of women across the country.

The justices heard arguments Tuesday morning from a lawyer for the anti-abortion Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which holds that the FDA erred in allowing mifepristone, one of the drugs used in a medication abortion, to be dispensed remotely. The FDA and most major medical associations say the ruling is sound, pointing to studies showing no difference in severe complications when the pills are dispensed via telemedicine versus in person.

Attorneys arguing on behalf of the drug noted that the plaintiffs in the case had no legal standing to even bring the case, which led Alito to ask, “Shouldn’t someone be able to challenge that in court? The American people have no remedy for that?”

Alito later asked essentially the same question of an attorney for Danco, the company that manufactures mifepristone.

“During the questioning of the solicitor general, the statement was made that no court has ever previously second-guessed the FDA’s judgment about access to a drug,” Alito said.

“Do you think the FDA is infallible?”

That prompted Justice Jackson to inquire, “You were asked if the agency is infallible, and I guess I’m wondering about the flip side, which is do you think that courts have specialized scientific knowledge with respect to pharmaceuticals?”

“Do you have concerns about judges parsing medical and scientific studies?”

As Justice Jackson rightly observed, courts and judges do not have special medical knowledge. Doctors and scientists, however, do, and they’re the ones who should make the decisions on what drugs are safe and are available to the public.

Capitol Insurrection Donald Trump GOP Supreme Court

Ted Cruz And Jim Jordan Could Be Toast If SCOTUS Rules Trump Is An Insurrectionist

As failed one-term former president Donald Trump waits to see what happens with the U.S. District Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. regarding whether or not he can legally be removed from the ballot in the upcoming election, there are two other key Republicans who are also wondering what could happen to them if the Supreme Court winds up taking the case and rules that Trump is indeed an insurrectionist.

Those two members of the GOP are Rep. Jim Jordan (OH) and Sen. Ted Cruz (TX), according to an illuminating article from MSNBC opinion writer and editor Hayes Brown.

Brown notes that over 200 members of Congress signed on to an amicus brief that supports Trump.

While the GOP lawmakers’ amicus brief is better drafted than most of Trump’s filings, it can’t be ignored that there’s a deeply self-serving element to their arguments. That’s especially true for those members who, under the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling, could also credibly be described as having ‘engaged in insurrection’ — and thus theoretically be disqualified from holding office.

The deepest fears of federal elected officials such as Cruz and Jordan can be found in one specific section of the brief, which pulls the curtain back on what everyone who played a role in January 6 fears most, Brown adds.

The self-interested lawmakers give up the game with this line from the brief: ‘Although not directly relevant to President Trump, the Colorado Supreme Court would give itself the power to judge the qualifications of those who would be elected to the House or Senate.’ That would be especially troubling for Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs of Arizona. The three of them were knee-deep in plotting to overturn the election, and, in a more just world, they would have faced expulsion for violating Section 3. It’s their inclusion as signatories on the amicus brief that makes this filing particularly odious.

Cruz was one of the prime figures who urged others in the GOP to join the brief.

The members who directly aided Trump’s efforts are especially interested in this case, but the effort to file the brief was led in the House by Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and in the Senate by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. Cruz’s participation is worth a side-eye given that he led the charge among Senate Republicans in challenging electoral votes in states where Trump called President-elect Joe Biden’s victory fraudulent. He also pitched a 10-day electoral commission to investigate the nonexistent fraud and potentially give state legislatures time to change their electoral slates as Trump would prefer. He never endorsed Trump’s wildest conspiracy theories, but he was caught on audio hoping Biden’s win would be reversed.

So if the Supreme Court decides that Trump can be removed from ballots, Cruz, Jordan, and others who took part in the plot to overturn the 2020 election could soon find they’ve been excluded from running or serving in any federal post, too. And that would be devastating to the GOP, which is quickly becoming known as the party of insurrection.

Crime Donald Trump Elections Supreme Court

Trump Attorney Appears To Threaten Supreme Court Justices On Appeal Of 2024 Ballot Case

Alina Habba is an attorney for failed one-term, twice-impeached former president Donald Trump, and remarks she made Thursday during an appearance on Fox have many suggesting that she was trying to threaten Supreme Court justices who will eventually have to decide whether or not the ex-president can be kept off primary ballots in states this year.

Speaking with Fox host Sean Hannity, according to HuffPost, Habba said, “I think it should be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court. I have faith in them.”

She added:

“You know people like (Supreme Court Justice Brett) Kavanaugh ― who the president fought for, who the president went through hell to get into place ― he’ll step up. Those people will step up. Not because they’re pro-Trump but because they’re pro-law. Because they’re pro-fairness, and the law on this is very clear.”

Habba’s comments raised eyebrows on Twitter/X, with some noting that she was either suggesting a quid pro quo or using threats to get her way with the high court.

Supreme Court

Kavanaugh’s Fellow Justices Consider Him An ‘Intellectual Lightweight’ And Are ‘Losing Patience’: Report

As the key swing vote on the United States Supreme Court, you’d think Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh would take his job a bit more seriously.

But according to a revealing report from Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, Kavanaugh is actually considered to be an “intellectual lightweight” by his colleagues and they’re rapidly “losing patience” with him.

When he was nominated for the high court by failed former president Donald Trump, Kavanaugh was known very differently.

During his 12 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Kavanaugh styled himself as a brainy operator who combined intellectual firepower with affable moderation, in rhetoric if not in substance. He wanted to be the conservative whom liberals could respect—Justice Antonin Scalia without the volcanic temper—and the high-minded jurist who could sell right-wing legal theories to the public as common-sense constitutional principles.

But it turns out that almost no one respects Kavanaugh, no matter their political affiliation, and what he’s become is “a man with seemingly few fixed convictions and even fewer interesting things to say. To the extent that his colleagues think about him at all, they seem to view him as a fixer who can cobble together five votes for a diaphanous majority opinion that decides almost nothing.”

Translation: Brett Kavanaugh is a lightweight. Oh, and he likes beer. A lot. He made that clear during his confirmation hearings.

Kavanaugh’s written rulings have been threadbare, sometimes composed of a sentence or two, and often drawing scorn from his fellow justices, who have called him out in their own writings. Consider:

  • In U.S. v. Texas, “Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote her own five-page concurrence picking apart Kavanaugh’s majority opinion.”
  • Also in U.S. v. Texas, “(Neil) Gorsuch pointed out that Kavanaugh was ‘simply ignoring’ several important questions that undermined his logic.”

How much do his fellow justices dislike Kavanaugh? According to Stern, they can’t hide their contempt for their colleague.

Thomas, Barrett, and Gorsuch aren’t the only members of the court who are losing patience with Kavanaugh. Justice Elena Kagan memorably castigated him for treating “judging as scorekeeping,” whining about “how unfair it is” when he loses, and repeating the same bad arguments “at a higher volume.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly accused him of outright dishonesty by misrepresenting precedent and dangling false promises. In a fed-up dissent in just her first term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson compared a Kavanaugh majority opinion to the children’s book If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. Alito’s rebuttal to Kavanaugh’s dissent in Sackett v. EPA consisted of exactly one sentence: Kavanaugh’s argument, Alito wrote, “cannot be taken seriously.”

Where does that leave the highest court in the land? Well, Kavanaugh can only be removed by impeachment, and there’s certainly no political will for that to happen, especially since no Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached and removed from office. Samuel Chase was impeached, but he remained on the court.

For now, Kavanaugh will remain the ultimate judicial lightweight who is seen as a joke by his colleagues on the bench. And in some ways, that’s a fitting punishment for his past sins.