Sheldon Whitehouse rips the so-called supreme court

Nice try, but it's all baloney. So far there's nothing significant presented here. A couple relatively small amounts of money that aren't tied to a single suspicious outcome. Nothing. In fact, you can't point to anything suspicious in Thomas' entire record. Not a single sentence out of character.

Allegations conveniently arising from a Democrat (highly partisan) and coinciding with the acceptance of possibly the most consequential case of the last 60 years. And one that seems to have the most egregious offenses of the Deep State (particularly EPA) right squarely in it's sights. All of the sudden. Imagine that.

And who cares about Congress? Due to the great compromise of the 60s, they've traded their ability to get anything done (that might put their careers in jeopardy by actually pissing voters off) for long careers to unelected bureacrats who can never be fired. Anybody believe they can actually muster enough votes to force "ethical standards" (whatever those are) on the Court? Seriously?

The whole thing is to laugh. Go on, give it a shot. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

You misunderstand. By 'corruption', I was referring to Clarence Thomas' judicial corruption. Thomas helping an acquaintance many years ago has nothing to do with the multiple violations of his oath in office.

Appointed for life, accountable to no one, so-called “justices” are not even bound by the Judicial Code of Conduct that covers all federal judges. Hearings of the Supreme Court are themselves rushed affairs. The Court generally gives each side one hour to make their oral arguments with an additional 30 minutes for cross-examination. Just three hours affect the fate of more than 300 million. Their questions and comments, sometimes littered with bizarre hypothetical scenarios, expose their own racist views. The comments of Supreme Court Justices during the Shelby v. Holder oral arguments in 2013 are deeply convoluted and racist.
https://www.liberationschool.org/sh...e-supreme-court-attacked-black-voting-rights/

 

1. No, Dems aren't "mad" at not "getting their way"-- anyone, who is appalled by such overt corruption in government, is disgusted by Thomas's disdain for the law (never mind, for ethics, or the appearance of being beyond reproach).
2. Dems do not want to and, specifically, Sen. Whitehouse's plan, is not an attempt to, "burn the system down." To the contrary, they would aim to provide a much needed hosing down, to the lawless hypocrisy, blazing in our Supreme Court, and threatening to completely ravage that fundamental beam, on which our representative government, rests. In short, Dems are trying to save the system; it is the unaccountability of the Roberts' Court, which is burning it down.

You really should watch the video (which, clearly, you haven't). It is not that long. There is no way a Democrat could do one-tenth of what Thomas and, previously, Scalia have done, without you calling for their heads.

Whitehouse's legislation would create a more accurate disclosure of gifts, received by Justices. To what, about that, do you object? It would also create clearer rules, for recusal-- again, your problem with this? You understand that the rules would apply to all members of the Court, liberal as well as conservative? Lastly, the Whitehouse legislation would create better enforcement of the rules-- if you favor "cleaning up the swamp," there is hardly a more important body, or a more manifestly evident problem, with which to start.

So tell me, what part of this do you see as "burning down" the system-- or is the system that you are sticking up for, and favor keeping in place, the system of corruption, in the Court?

 

Wrong. By repealing the landmark act's primary provision (Section 4(b) or "coverage formula"), it rendered Section 5 inoperable and thus removed the official authorization mandate. The act was essentially castrated & no longer able to protect black & minority voting rights. This opened the floodgates for a campaign of discriminatory voter suppression laws by state & regional govts that could circumvent the act's Section 2 provision (which lacked an official authorization mandate). Victims of voter discrimination would have to file a lawsuit just to uphold Section 2.

Dissenting voter Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated:

“'[V]oting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that.’ But the Court today terminates the remedy that proved to be best suited to block that discrimination. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has worked to combat voting discrimination where other remedies had been tried and failed. Particularly effective is the VRA’s requirement of federal preclearance for all changes to voting laws in the regions of the country with the most aggravated records of rank discrimination against minority voting rights.”

You say the "only change" - but you're ingoring the fact that those states that were under the preclearance mandate ensured voting protections for tens of millions of blacks & other minorities. Those kind of numbers are enough to sway ANY election. You're also ignoring the litany of voter suppression laws that had been on hold, and then enacted only after the Shelby ruling - eg, the Texas’s photo ID law which was announced within 24 hours of this ruling, and various statutes restricting poll hours, early voting, and pre- and same-day registration. Two other states, Mississippi and Alabama, also began to enforce photo ID laws that had previously been barred because of federal preclearance.

Further...

Racist governments could now cut voters by eliminating early voting; eliminating polling places; forcing people to wait in line for hours to vote; de-registering individuals on flimsy pretenses; and more. Charges of voter discrimination now had to be proven on a costly individual basis that could be tied up in court proceedings for years. The Voting Rights Act broke the legal codes excluding Black Americans from the vote but did not eliminate anti-Black oppression. Social consciousness during the 1960s was dramatically altered as a result of the political mass movement, but capitalist property relations and the white supremacist structure did not change.
https://www.liberationschool.org/sh...e-supreme-court-attacked-black-voting-rights/

As for the VRA's initial expiration date, based on its great success, the act has been reauthorized numerous times. In 1970 Congress determined that although significant progress had been made in reducing racial discrimination in voting since 1965, sufficient discrimination existed to justify extending the special provisions. Congress enacted major amendments to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. Each of these amendments coincided with an impending expiration of some of the Act's special provisions, which originally were set to expire by 1970. However, in recognition of the voting discrimination that continued despite the Act, Congress repeatedly amended the Act to reauthorize the special provisions.

Section 2 of the VRA, however, is permanent and has no expiration date as do certain other provisions of the Voting Rights Act. In the 1980 Mobile v. Bolden, SCOTUS held that the section, as originally enacted by Congress in 1964, was a restatement of the protections afforded by the 15th amendment. Section 2 prohibits the “denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” But the provision lacks official oversight, and can't necessarily protect against any & all laws designed to negatively impact black & minority voters.

SCOTUS doesn't have to do anything but remove specific rights/protections that have been a staple for generations by merely exploiting its conservative majority and concocting some nonsensical "constitutional" justification for its ruling. By repealing the VRA, SCOTUS allowed state & local govts to enact new, but long-sought, Republican voter suppression laws. It's the very same scheme behind the repealing of Roe V Wade.

The bribery incentives Thomas and his wife received removed any chance of Thomas ever changing his mind - and regardless, presents a blatant conflict of interest. That's the point. Further, considering the long-standing protections (and immediate & long success) of the VRA, it would seem that the very decision to even take up the Shelby case by SCOTUS is very suspect:

The lawsuit claimed that both Sections 4 and 5 violated the constitutional rights of the county. The District Court denied their claim and upheld the Act. This was part of the plan. Shelby plaintiffs appealed their case to a higher court the following year, and the U.S. Court of Appeals again denied their claim. In 2012, out of the tens of thousands of available cases, the Supreme Court chose to take up Shelby v. Holder. The specific issue in question: Section 4(b) of the VRA, which identified states and counties with documented acts of racist voter suppression, and Section 5, which made it so any changes made to the electoral laws by those local governments had to be approved by the Department of Justice.
https://www.liberationschool.org/sh...e-supreme-court-attacked-black-voting-rights/[/QUOTE]

 

Admit it. America will never progress as long as reasonable people keep having to fight the party of crackpots - the GOP. The GOP won't even let people vote - yet they continue whining about "freedom." Why any developed nation still has such a party in the 21st Century - let alone one that has any power/influence - is mind boggling.

 

More SCOTUS intrigue.

Neil Gorsuch is Preparing His Revenge: Gutting America's Protective Agencies
Fulfilling Bannon’s and Trump’s promise to dismantle — or eviscerate — most of America’s regulatory agencies, leaving us all subject to the tender mercies of the country’s billionaires & CEOs…

If they pull it off, they could destroy the ability of:

— the EPA to regulate pollutants,
— the USDA to keep our food supply safe,
— the FDA to oversee drugs going onto the market,
— OSHA to protect workers,
— the CPSC to keep dangerous toys and consumer products off the market,
— the FTC to regulate monopolies,
— the DOT to come up with highway and automobile safety standards,
— the ATF to regulate guns,
— the Interior Department to regulate drilling and mining on federal lands,
— the Forest Service to protect our woodlands and rivers,
— and the Department of Labor to protect workers’ rights.

Among other things on the rightwing billionaire wish-list: virtually the entirety of America’s ability to protect its citizens from corporate predation rests on what’s called the Chevron deference (more on that in a moment), which the Court appears prepared to overturn with a case they just accepted last week.
https://hartmannreport.com/p/neil-g...id=119764506&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

 

Too late, already been covered.

Except for the hyperbole, that is.

Regulations from agencies that properly comport with their proper Congressional authorization have nothing to worry about. That's the way it's supposed to work.

But EPA specifically is facing an obliteration of their authority to regulate CO2 which has never been authorized by Congress and only arose out of 2007's Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court debacle of a decision. And with it will go the entire global warming BS in a instant since there is no way for the government to control CO2 without getting new authorization from Congress.

Which is pert near impossible these days.

 

Since no one here has demonstrated so much as a single act of corruption let alone a decision
An out of context decision your sour grapes sir hope you enjoy them.

 

Why do you because there is far less there than there is against the Bidens family.

 

Only by liberals...

 

Only in RWNJ LaLa Land.

 

Before you contribute you should endeavor to find the truth granted that's not easy to do in the reality bending alphabet soup media only the narrative matters

Good. And no the job of the atf is not to regulate guns. It is to sid and assist local law enforcement with ballistics studies in fire arms cases and home made bombs and the like it also used to have some duties regarding alcohol and tobacco.

 

by a majority of the population.

Liberals were never a majority.

conservatives have destroyed trust in the court.

 

And a majority of the population voted for Reagan and both BUshes at one time. Idiocracy is here. Has been for a while. Why else do people vote for people whose policies are all but guaranteed to make their lives worse. To loosely paraphrase Ibsen the majority of people are stupid.

 

I don't see conservatives hollering about a judge that had help from a friend to help someone else in need. I don't see conservatives ignoring a history of consistent rulings of that judge in order to push the "idea" that that judge is "corrupt". I don't see conservatives using perception, not facts, to destroy that judge's career.

Liberals have never liked Clarence. He escaped the plantation. I can't count how many times I've seen the words "Uncle Tom" from liberals used to describe ANY black person that is conservative...despite their own claim that to call a black person that is racist and should never be done. And I've seen Clarence called that more times than I care to count.

All in all, its leftists that are destroying trust in SCOTUS. Not Conservatives.

 

What is it that conservatives find so unreasonable about demanding that SC justices are bound to adhere to a set of ethics rules? Ethics rules they currently flaunt.

 

Why are liberals suddenly demanding that they follow something that hasn't ever been needed for 200+ years? Besides, they already have an ethics board that they have to make sure they don't give a reason to piss them off. Congress.

Plus what arbitrary ethic rules would be applied? Whose ethics would be applied? With the way leftists are today would "misgendering" someone be made a part of those "ethics" rules? I'm sure there are plenty of leftists even on this board that would demand such. "Ethics" change over time. It can even change drastically with in one persons life time. (it sure has in just my life time) And for someone that is appointed to that position for life, having a list of "ethic rules that they must follow" is dangerous. Especially with leftists as they love to point out stupid or questionable things people have done in the past and try and get them canceled. Things that were acceptable in the past but are not now. Ex: Black Face.

 

Sheldon Whitehouse rips the so-called supreme court

If I had the motivation I would rip Sheldon Whitehouse, the so-called senator. Luckily I don't really care.

 

You need to read the entire article, which is a new (not old) article.

You don't seem to understand how politics in the US works. America is a heavily capitalist-centered system - basically, a corporatocracy. Politics here doesn't operate on consistent & proper constitutional protocol, reason, and ethics, let alone adherence to the rule of law or one's oath of office - but on where money flows to & from. Basically, those who give, get - and those who can give the most (corporations & the wealthy) wield the greatest political influence.

Here's more to educate you on how corrupt SCOTUS has become & how corporate/private funds made it possible:

(June 2020) The Supreme Court’s climate decision came out of a decades-long campaign to kneecap regulation
A brief history of how dark money and the country's most powerful legal organization brought us to this point.
The Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision earlier today that constrains the federal government’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. In West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the six justices who make up the court’s conservative supermajority set a disturbing precedent that could limit federal agencies’ ability to enact regulations. The decision is particularly concerning for the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, as it leads federal efforts to zero out the planet-warming emissions causing storms, drought, and sea-level rise around the world.

The Supreme Court did not arrive at this pivotal moment by chance. For decades, ultra-wealthy conservative donors, libertarian think tanks, and their allies within the Republican Party have orchestrated a campaign to thwart the federal government’s efforts to regulate corporations — including efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which threaten the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Over the years, they have paid considerable attention to the judiciary, methodically installing conservative judges in anticipation of a case that could kneecap agencies they view as overstepping their authority.

Enter West Virginia v. EPA. The specifics of the case were convoluted, but the arguments at its heart were “a direct shot at the EPA, at their ability to regulate,” said Kert Davies, founder and director of the Climate Investigations Center. “To say they’ve been preparing for this moment for 50 years is not an exaggeration.” . . .

According to investigative journalist Jane Mayer’s 2016 book Dark Money, which chronicles how conservative billionaires shaped the radical right, Charles Koch and his brother and business partner, David, have personally spent well over $100 million on advancing a libertarian agenda. But even more consequentially, they streamlined the efforts of a small group of like-minded elites towards building what one Koch operative called a “fully integrated network” that has influenced every aspect of the country’s political system. ...

Once Trump was elected, Leo [former executive vice president of the Federalist Society] shepherded the nominations of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett through the Senate. According to Internal Revenue Service filings compiled by True North Research, between 2014 and 2020, Leo and his allies raised more than $580 million for conservative nonprofits that do not have to disclose their donors. The network of nonprofits used much of that to hire conservative media relations firms to place opinion essays, schedule pundits on television shows, send speakers to rallies, and create online videos — all to drum up public support and pressure senators to confirm Trump’s picks. Now, decades of coordinated efforts by ultra-wealthy conservative donors, libertarian think tanks, and the Republican Party are all coming to a head.
https://grist.org/accountability/th...-decades-long-campaign-to-kneecap-regulation/

Yes, particularly when both SCOTUS & Congress are infested with right-wing corporate shills paid off by big business. Who will there be left to challenge their decisions or to keep them from blocking meaningful & necessary reforms?

Why was this a 'debacle of a decision'? Are not the words "Environmental Protection" in "EPA"?

So tell me, how does Congress (even if it wasn't contaminated with right-wing crackpots) counter a SCOTUS ruling - particularly since SCOTUS itself is dominated by right-wing crackpots too? As Congressman Sheldon Whitehouse told Thom Hartmann in the following interview, there's no comparison to the money influence flowing to the Republican party vs that of the Democratic party.

From the video: How SCOTUS took Your Privacy Along with Roe v Wade Featuring Sheldon Whitehouse
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=siR3_KstfZY

Hartmann: Is there any analog to that in the Democratic party, and how tied to the Republican party are these [dark money] groups?
Sheldon: They would love to say that there is. And there's a very conspicuous operation being run by the Republican dark money operation to try to smear groups on the Democratic side as being equivalent. And the facts of the matter is we're late to the game. We're not even close, and we don't have anything like the power clout or collaboration of the groups on their side. Moreover, although we do 'dark money' it tends to be people who want to do good and to have their views reflected in politics. Whereas on the Republican side it is a money-making operation. These are groups that can put a $1000 into politics and make a $100,000 in deregulation.
Hartmann: Or tax breaks.
Sheldon: They can put $6 million dollars into politics and make a $6 billion dollars in free pollution & tax breaks. So there's a persistence and a motive to the Republican side to this that we don't share.
Hartmann: And therefore the billionaires on the Democratic side - the few that we know of - tend to be more interested in good government than advancing a personally selfish agenda.
Sheldon: And that's why when we bring up the Disclose Act, every Democrat will vote for it - and almost no Republicans will, if any. None have so far.

Thus, SCOTUS can, like it often does, twist & distort constitutional meanings to serve the interests of big business.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been making polarizing decisions that are hacking away at the civil rights of millions of Americans—from voting rights and gerrymandering to abortion rights. It is also increasingly using a secretive process known as the “shadow docket” to make consequential decisions—often releasing them with no explanation and in the middle of the night.
https://newrepublic.com/article/155599/political-corruption-legalized-supreme-court

SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled in favor of legalizing political bribery by corporations. They did this with their rulings in Buckley (1976), Bellotti [1978], Citizens United (2010), and McDonnell (2016) in which they deemed political bribery a protection & right under the 1st Amendment. Do you honestly believe the writers of the Constitution would've agreed with such a bastardized interpretation of the 1s Amendment?

SCOTUS will also steal an election:

<> The Betrayal of America is a book by Vincent Bugliosi [a former prosecutor who served as Deputy District Attorney in LA County] which is largely based on an article he wrote for The Nation entitled "None Dare Call It Treason", which argues that the US Supreme Court's December 12, 2000, 5–4 decision in Bush v. Gore unlawfully handed the 2000 U.S. presidential election to George W. Bush. Bugliosi declares that the decision damaged both the US Constitution and democracy in general. He accuses the five majority judges of moral culpability by endangering Americans' constitutional freedoms. <>

SCOTUS will also reverse old rulings/precedents that have been a successful mainstay for decades - such as Roe v Wade - just to pander to the interests of the Christian right nutjobs (which Thom Hartmann calls "America's Taliban"). So much for "separation of Church & State."

SCOTUS will also violate the 10th Amendment by denying state & local govts their centuries-old right (and tradition) to enact whatever gun laws they deem necessary for the safety of its people by twisting the historic meaning/purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

The solution? One way around SCOTUS's growing right-wing/corporate-loving power & corruption is to introduce term limits to its judges.

Booker, Whitehouse, Blumenthal, Schatz, Hirono Introduce Term Limit Measure to Restore Balance, Fairness to Supreme Court
Supreme Court TERM Act would establish 18-year terms for justices
https://www.booker.senate.gov/news/...-to-restore-balance-fairness-to-supreme-court

But I would go further and introduce legislation that would require an equal party representation in SCOTUS, no matter how many judges were present. SCOTUS nominees should also be more strictly vetted, and the Senate needs to be more discerning as to who they approve - which is impossible anytime right-wingers dominate the Senate.

Actually, the best measure would be to abolish SCOTUS altogether. We don't need it. State & local courts are sufficient. Nor do we need the executive branch. That's simply too much power/influence to give to a single person. Congress is sufficient to serve all our needs. But that won't ever happen unless we eliminated or replaced the Constitution. Unfortunately, Americans by and large are not mature, practical, progressive, or logical enough to demand such healthy changes.

-----------------------------

Regarding global warming/climate change, it doesn't matter if it's natural and/or anthropogenic. The best option still remains to drastically cut our greenhouse emissions.

* If global warming is due primarily to human activities, then it would be wise to curtail greenhouse gas emissions.
* If global warming is due primarily to natural cycles, it still would be wise to curtail greenhouse gas emissions - as not doing so would enhance warming & disrupt a natural return to energy balance - potentially causing it to spiral out of control.

It's also a good idea to take steps to reduce the amount of heat we produce, since human industrial & consumer activities represent a major heat engine. Along this would be to take additional steps to drastically reduce our population. This can be done easily by simply increasing the standard of living, health, and education for all.

Thus, more important than the issue of global warming/climate change is human abuse & destruction of our natural resources, as well as overpopulation. This cannot be denied - and it will kill us faster than global warming. Excessive resource consumption & waste, plus contamination of virtually all the planet's water, air, land, and food on many levels - including the planet's ionosphere & possibly magnetosphere (with electrosmog) - is something we can and should eliminate. That's why corporations pour billions into fighting climate change mitigation efforts, including regulatory environmental measures that would cut into their profits.

 

The ATF also regulates, via licensing, the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives in interstate commerce. Many of ATF's activities are carried out in conjunction with task forces made up of state and local law enforcement officers, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods.

ATF uses these statutes to target, investigate and recommend prosecution of these offenders to reduce the level of violent crime and to enhance public safety. ATF also strives to increase State and local awareness of available Federal prosecution under these statutes. To curb the illegal use of firearms and enforce the Federal firearms laws, ATF issues firearms licenses and conducts firearms licensee qualification and compliance inspections.
https://www.atf.gov/about/what-we-do

 

what a load of bunkum, the dead don't get to vote convicted felons don't get to vote, purging voter rolls is required by the law. It is almost never done in big blue cities.

 

The conservative organization, Heritage Foundation, uncovered only 19 cases of zombies voting since 1997. Hardly enough to swing any election.

And do you know why you even know about zombies voting? Because they were caught.

You should be happy about this because it helps the Republicans since around 1/3rd of blacks, plus a percentage of minorities, have been convicted of a felony - those who would otherwise have likely voted Democrat. Thousands of non-felons (who committed misdemeanors) have also been purged. An example of this was in Florida where 8000 non-felons were wrongly purged.

Depends on why voters are purged. Over 300,000 voters in Georgia were purged simply for 'inactivity'. That's enough to sway any election.

Here's more on purging you should be aware of.

(pdf) Purged! How Flawed and Inconsistent Voting Systems Could Deprive Millions of Americans of the Right to Vote
https://www.aclu.org/report/purged-...-systems-could-deprive-millions-americans-rig

Plus, look at how frequent Republican voters commit fraud.

The Pattern of GOP Voter Fraud
In case after case from 2020, it turns out that Republicans were the ones misbehaving at the ballot box.
https://www.thebulwark.com/the-pattern-of-gop-voter-fraud/

(video) List of Republicans committing voter fraud continues to grow
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=CRH3gl9u3EU

 

That's seriously the funniest thing I've ever read here. Have you seriously never bothered to look up what Massachusetts v. EPA actually says? You ought to try it. Shouldn't be too tough to find.

Again, you missed Schoolhouse Rock when you were a kid? Here's a hint: the legislative branch (otherwise known as "Congress") legislates (otherwise known as making laws). Congress counters a SCOTUS ruling by passing a proper law. In this specific case, by amending the Clean Air Act to officially make CO2 a regulated "pollutant" (contrary to any rational technical definition of pollutant). While thoroughly absurd, it would still be the law of the land. And furthermore, the names of every single moron who voted to make it a pollutant would be noted and public and open to whatever electoral consequences result from being abusive morons.

Of course your hero, Sheldon Whitehouse, being a member of Congress, knows that.

The rest of your screed is just paranoid idiocy and not worth addressing.

 

They've been systematically abusing their powers for centuries, since Marbury v Madison. Anyone who thinks they've more abusive of their powers now than 1935-1980 must be completely insane.

 

They are merely doing their job.
"The Constitution is what the judges say it is." --Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes