Category: Supreme Court

Categories
Crime Donald Trump Supreme Court

Trump Is Trying To Keep His Classified Documents Case From SCOTUS – Here’s Why

When failed former president Donald Trump and his legal team refused to try and stop one of his attorneys from testifying before a federal grand jury recently, many were left scratching their heads, wondering why the ruling of a lower court ordering the Trump lawyer to testify wasn’t appealed all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin notes in an article she wrote for the network that the disgraced ex-president and his attorneys appear to be playing the long game, and that could come back to haunt them down the line.

Trump has made clear he believes this Supreme Court — controlled by conservative justices, three of whom he appointed — owes him one. My hunch is that Trump’s team let Corcoran’s testimony happen because of what’s likely involved in any request to pause, much less, review a crime-fraud-related ruling: the evidence.

Put another way, if Trump had petitioned the Supreme Court to stay Corcoran’s testimony and document production, the justices would have seen some, if not all, of what Judge Howell and the three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit have already reviewed: proof that Trump misled Corcoran and engaged in criminal conduct.

If Trump had used up his judicial lifeline, appealed to the high court and they ruled against him, it would be game over and he’d likely be on his way to a multi-count indictment on charges ranging from mishandling of classified information to violations of the Espionage Act. And if the former president is found guilty on those charges, he’ll likely spend the rest of his life in federal prison.

Rubin explained the reasonsing:

And for someone whose one last hope, if he is ultimately charged or tried by any of the multiple entities now investigating him, is that same Supreme Court, letting the justices see evidence of his alleged crimes now would be a bridge too far. Even if that means Corcoran’s notes and transcripts of “personal audio recordings” are now in the DOJ’s control, even if Corcoran had to return to the grand jury as a witness the day after arguing the application of Trump’s other privileges, Trump can’t afford to lose the Supreme Court yet.

But even if Trump’s documents case does wind up before the nine justices, there’s a good chance he won’t get any relief there, either. Because if the court allows him to get away with such a serious violation of law, it would be setting the sort of precedent that would, in years to come, turn future U.S. heads of state into absolute dictators who can rule by fiat And that would mean American democracy was dead.

 

Categories
Supreme Court

Elena Kagan Mops The Floor With Brett Kavanaugh In SCOTUS Ruling

A ruling just released from the U.S. Supreme Court features a hilarious footnote in which Justice Elena Kagan uses logic and reason to remind fellow Justice Brett “I like beer!” Kavanaugh that the law applies to everyone, including large corporations who try to get out of paying their employees.

Mark Joseph Stern of Slate caught the dustup between Kagan and Kavanaugh in a case where Kagan was in the majority on an opinion involving overtime pay for a man who worked 84 hours a week but was denied overtime by his employer.

The case is Helix Energy Solutions v. Hewitt. In it, Michael Hewitt alleged that he often worked as much as 84 hours a week on an offshore oil platform owned by Helix but was only paid a set amount for weekly work, not hourly, even though he clearly exceeded 40 hours work in a week, meaning he was entitled to overtime.

Kavanaugh, along with Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, were in the minority, ruling that Hewitt wasn’t entitled to receive overtime for his work. Kavanaugh also authored the dissenting opinion.

That led Kagan to make the following notation in the footnotes of the majority opinion, clearly aiming her comments at the three justices who had ruled against Hewitt, especially Kavanaugh since he was the author:

“The dissent… tries just to power past the regulatory text. The dissent reasons that because Hewitt received more than $455 for a day’s work, he must have been paid on a salary basis. That is a non-sequitur to end all non-sequiturs. Hewitt’s high daily pay ensured that the HCE rule’s salary-level requirement would not have prevented his exemption: $963 (per day) is indeed more than $455 (per week).”

In another footnote to the majority opinion, Kagan also wrote that Helix had made an argument in their filing before the Supreme Court they failed to make in lower court filings, which would normally mean the high court wouldn’t even consider it in their ruling, and yet Kavanaugh saw fit to “opine on it anyway” in his dissent.

Categories
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.

Categories
Supreme Court

Attorney Uses Clarence Thomas’ Own Words To Humiliate The 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?”

Katyal:

“Yes.”

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.

 

Categories
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.