Spring forward.
To delete this message, click the X at top right.

SCOTUS

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

SCOTUS

#826

Post by AndyinPA »

Ethics? What ethics?
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

SCOTUS

#827

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Color me :shock:
:sarcasm:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
Phoenix520
Posts: 4149
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:20 pm
Verified:

SCOTUS

#828

Post by Phoenix520 »

ACB: Hey Clarence, how do I fill out this portion here?
CT: Oh, you can leave that one blank.
ACB: But what if they find out?
CT: (leans in, whispers) What are they gonna do? Fire you?

(Peals of laughter)
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

SCOTUS

#829

Post by raison de arizona »

If people tasked with judging the laws can’t be bothered to follow them, where does that leave us?
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6688
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

SCOTUS

#830

Post by pipistrelle »

raison de arizona wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:06 pm If people tasked with judging the laws can’t be bothered to follow them, where does that leave us?
That ship sailed.
User avatar
noblepa
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:55 pm
Location: Bay Village, Ohio
Occupation: Retired IT Nerd

SCOTUS

#831

Post by noblepa »

pipistrelle wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:22 pm
raison de arizona wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 1:06 pm If people tasked with judging the laws can’t be bothered to follow them, where does that leave us?
That ship sailed.
Actually, I think it sank.
User avatar
Gregg
Posts: 5502
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:54 am
Location: Cincinnati, Gettysburg
Occupation: We build cars

SCOTUS

#832

Post by Gregg »

raison de arizona wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 5:00 pm
Suranis wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 4:47 pm
neonzx wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 1:32 am What does a mall Santa gig job have to do with LGBTQ rights? And when is the last time you saw children roaming around in KKK robes with pointy hoods
At a guess, his point was that the mall Santa has to serve everyone, no matter how their dress or other aspects might offend him personally.
KKK membership isn't a protected class, unlike LGBTQ. So no, mall Santa can tell them to take a hike.
At least until this ruling comes out.
Supreme Commander, Imperial Illuminati Air Force
:dog:

You don't have to consent, but I'm gonna tase you anyway.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#833

Post by RTH10260 »

Evangelical minister who sought to influence Supreme Court comes under withering criticism

Jon Ward·Chief National Correspondent
Fri, December 9, 2022 at 10:19 PM

A conservative evangelical minister testifying before a House committee Thursday came under fierce personal attacks from Republican members of Congress angry that he has accused U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito of leaking news of a 2014 decision ahead of time.

Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., called the Rev. Rob Schenck “a pathetic grifter” and declined to even ask him any questions about his claims, saying it would be “pointless.”

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., dismissed Schenck’s claims as “gossip” and “deceit.”

“I have to tell you, it is one of the most pernicious performances I have seen publicly in a long time,” Biggs said during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

Conservative attorney Mark Paoletta, a former White House budget office lawyer under former President Trump, testified as a Republican witness and called Schenck “con man” with “zero credibility.”

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, waged a withering cross-examination of Schenck about his credibility, arguing that in his 2018 book “Costly Grace” the minister told a story that was not accurate.

Schenck wrote in his book that former Chief Justice William Rehnquist referred to Schenck’s brother Paul Schenck as "reverend" during the opening moments of oral arguments in a 1996 case. Robert Schenck, in his telling, said this detail was an important reference that would enable the brothers to “cast the conflict as a religious liberty case.”

But Jordan showed the transcript of the arguments, which demonstrated that Rehnquist did not use the term “reverend.” He also played the audio, to the same effect. Schenck looked nonplussed and embarrassed. The term “reverend” was included in the initial court filing of the case, and Schenck told Yahoo News that he and his brother had celebrated that fact, though not at the moment he described in the book.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/evangelical- ... 26904.html
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6688
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

SCOTUS

#834

Post by pipistrelle »

RTH10260 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:02 pm
Conservative attorney Mark Paoletta, a former White House budget office lawyer under former President Trump, testified as a Republican witness and called Schenck “con man” with “zero credibility.”
So, one of their kind.
User avatar
Frater I*I
Posts: 3210
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:52 am
Location: City of Dis, Seventh Circle of Hell
Occupation: Certificated A&P Mechanic
Verified: ✅Verified Devilish Hyena
Contact:

SCOTUS

#835

Post by Frater I*I »

pipistrelle wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:06 pm
RTH10260 wrote: Fri Dec 09, 2022 7:02 pm
Conservative attorney Mark Paoletta, a former White House budget office lawyer under former President Trump, testified as a Republican witness and called Schenck “con man” with “zero credibility.”
So, one of their kind.
Yes, but remember, sharks turn on their own kind all the time...
"He sewed his eyes shut because he is afraid to see, He tries to tell me what I put inside of me
He's got the answers to ease my curiosity, He dreamed a god up and called it Christianity"

Trent Reznor
New Turtle
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:43 pm

SCOTUS

#836

Post by New Turtle »

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 9853
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Pittsburgh
Verified:

SCOTUS

#837

Post by AndyinPA »

https://www.mediaite.com/news/brett-kav ... -righters/
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s judicial ethics came under scrutiny after it was reported that he attended a holiday party with former Donald Trump officials and numerous other prominent right-wing operatives.

Politico Playbook reported on a Christmas party held on Friday at the home of American Conservative Union leader Matt Schlapp and his wife, Trump White House Director of Strategic Communications Mercedes Schlapp. Kavanaugh was at the top of the guest list, among several other prominent names flagged by Politico.

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and Ginger Gaetz, Sean Spicer, Alex Acosta, Sebastian Gorka, Stephen and Katie Miller, Chad Wolf, Greta Van Susteren and John Coale, Laura Schlapp and Bryan Wells, Brendan Carr, Rep.-elect George Santos (R-NY), Erin and Nick Perrine, Erik Prince, Ziad Ojakli, Peter Davidson, Steve Holland and Ben Terris.

Bloomberg noted that Kavanaugh’s attendance lends to concerns about his involvement in partisan activities, especially when the trust in the Supreme Court has been in a continuous decline, according to recent polls. Supreme Court justices are frequently critiqued for attending functions that coincide with their political views.
"Choose your leaders with wisdom and forethought. To be led by a coward is to be controlled by all that the coward fears… To be led by a liar is to ask to be told lies." -Octavia E. Butler
User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 7541
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:07 pm
Location: Rescue Pets Land
Occupation: 21st Century Suffragist
Verified: ✅🐴🐎🦄🌻5000 posts and counting

SCOTUS

#838

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer »

Strange bedmates outed in a Fox News article.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... r-AA15IKta

Supreme Court justices issue scathing Title 42 dissent: 'We are a court of law'

Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Ketanji Brown Jackson made an unlikely team on Tuesday by issuing a dissent against the majority's opinion to indefinitely keep Title 42 in place while the high court considers an argument from 19 mostly Republican-led states.

Those states challenged a district court's ruling last month that would vacate Title 42, which was enacted by the Trump administration in March 2020 to allow officials to expel migrants on public health grounds.

Gorsuch, a Trump appointee, wrote the dissent and was joined by Jackson, who President Biden nominated earlier this year.

The two justices argued the Biden administration and Congress have failed to address adequately the immigration crisis that is likely coming after Title 42 is vacated, but wrote that it is not the Supreme Court's job to issue policies where elected leaders fail.

"The only means left to mitigate the crisis, the States suggest, is an order from this Court directing the federal government to continue its COVID-era Title 42 policies as long as possible—at the very least during the pendency of our review," Gorsuch wrote.

"For my part, I do not discount the States’ concerns. Even the federal government acknowledges ‘that the end of the Title 42 orders will likely have disruptive consequences,'" he continued in the dissent. "But the current border crisis is not a COVID crisis. And courts should not be in the business of perpetuating administrative edicts designed for one emergency only because elected officials have failed to address a different emergency. We are a court of law, not policymakers of last resort." :rotflmao:
"Mickey Mouse and I grew up together." - Ruthie Tompson, Disney animation checker and scene planner and one of the first women to become a member of the International Photographers Union in 1952.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#839

Post by RTH10260 »

A Charity Tied to the Supreme Court Offers Donors Access to the Justices

Jo Becker and Julie Tate
Sat, December 31, 2022 at 4:13 PM GMT+1

In some years, Chief Justice John Roberts does the honors. In others, it might be Justice Sonia Sotomayor or Justice Clarence Thomas presenting the squared-off hunks of marble affixed with the Supreme Court’s gilded seal.

Hewed from slabs left over from the 1930s construction of the nation’s high court and handed out in its magnificent Great Hall, they are a unique status symbol in a town that craves them. And while the ideological bents of the justices bestowing them might vary, there is one constant: All the recipients have given at least $5,000 to a charity favored by the justices, and, more often than not, the donors have a significant stake in the way the court decides cases.

The charity, the Supreme Court Historical Society, is ostensibly independent of the judicial branch of government, but in reality the two are inextricably intertwined. The charity’s stated mission is straightforward: to preserve the court’s history and educate the public about the court’s importance in American life. But over the years the society has also become a vehicle for those seeking access to nine of the most reclusive and powerful people in the nation. The justices attend the society’s annual black-tie dinner soirees, where they mingle with donors and thank them for their generosity, and serve as masters of ceremonies to more regular society-sponsored lectures or reenactments of famous cases.

The society has raised more than $23 million over the past two decades. Because of its nonprofit status, it does not have to publicly disclose its donors — and declined when asked to do so. But The New York Times was able to identify the sources behind more than $10.7 million raised since 2003, the first year for which relevant records were available.



https://www.yahoo.com/news/charity-tied ... 29995.html
(original: NYT)
Hidden Content
This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#840

Post by RTH10260 »

Progressives blast Supreme Court over secret payments of at least $1 million to the ex-Bush official who reviewed the leak investigation

Oma Seddiq
Fri, January 27, 2023 at 8:44 PM GMT+1
  • The Supreme Court failed to disclose its past relationship with Michael Chertoff, CNN reported.
    Chertoff, a security consultant, recently reviewed the court's internal leak investigation.
    Progressive groups slammed the court over what they view as a lack of transparency.
The Supreme Court on Friday came under fire following reports that it failed to disclose its past relationship with a former Homeland Security secretary who reviewed the court's investigation into who leaked the draft ruling that revealed the court was about to overturn abortion rights.

Michael Chertoff, who served under President George W. Bush and now runs a security risk management firm, had provided services to the Supreme Court before he was tasked with independently reviewing the leak investigation, which ultimately did not find who the leaker was, CNN reported.

The Supreme Court privately paid at least around $1 million to the Chertoff Group for security assessments related to the justices' safety, involving reviews of their homes and months-long consultations, according to CNN. The firm also assessed COVID-19 practices at the court, CNN reported.

Yet these financial contracts and the court's connection to Chertoff were excluded from the Supreme Court's investigative report released last week, which he signed off on, raising concerns about transparency and the thoroughness of his independent review.

"It feels like every day brings a new story about the Roberts Court's nonexistent relationship with transparency and ethics," Sarah Lipton-Lubet, president of the progressive-leaning Take Back the Court Action Fund, said in a statement on Friday, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts.

Chertoff, in a statement accompanied with the Supreme Court's report, wrote that he was responsible for reviewing the court's probe and identifying "additional useful investigative measures." Though Chertoff, after his assessment, concluded that he couldn't find any.

"Chertoff claims that he couldn't find 'any additional useful investigative measures' to identify the Dobbs leaker. We identified more than a dozen questions worth asking — but then again, we don't have secret contracts with the Court," Lipton-Lubet said. "I guess Chertoff had at least a million reasons not to ask any of those questions. This kind of rot is at the core of this Court, and yet they wonder why the public no longer trusts them."

The hidden payments come as progressive groups, congressional lawmakers, court observers, and ethics advocates demand greater financial transparency at the Supreme Court, which is not required by law to disclose its contracts.




https://www.yahoo.com/news/progressives ... 35120.html
(original: Business Insider)
User avatar
pipistrelle
Posts: 6688
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:27 am

SCOTUS

#841

Post by pipistrelle »

"This kind of rot is at the core of this Court, and yet they wonder why the public no longer trusts them."
They don't wonder why. They don't care.
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

SCOTUS

#842

Post by RVInit »

pipistrelle wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 7:32 pm
"This kind of rot is at the core of this Court, and yet they wonder why the public no longer trusts them."
They don't wonder why. They don't care.
:winner:
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
bob
Posts: 5382
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2021 12:07 am

SCOTUS

#843

Post by bob »

CNN: Exclusive: Supreme Court justices used personal emails for work and ‘burn bags’ were left open in hallways, sources say:
Long before the leak of a draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade, some Supreme Court justices often used personal email accounts for sensitive transmissions instead of secure servers set up to guard such information, among other security lapses not made public in the court’s report on the investigation last month.

* * *

Supreme Court employees also used printers that didn’t produce logs – or were able to print sensitive documents off-site without tracking – and “burn bags” meant to ensure the safe destruction of materials were left open and unattended in hallways.

“This has been going on for years,” one former employee said.

The problem with the justices’ use of emails persisted in part because some justices were slow to adopt to the technology and some court employees were nervous about confronting them to urge them to take precautions, one person said. Such behavior meant that justices weren’t setting an example to take security seriously.

The justices were “not masters of information security protocol,” one former court employee told CNN.
Image ImageImage
User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6120
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:01 am
Location: FloriDUH Hell
Verified: 🤩✅✅✅✅✅🤩

SCOTUS

#844

Post by neonzx »

Well, damn. At least Hilary was smart enough to setup her own private server and not use an @aol.com email.

:P
User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 3830
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 8:48 am

SCOTUS

#845

Post by RVInit »

neonzx wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:18 am Well, damn. At least Hilary was smart enough to setup her own private server and not use an @aol.com email.

:P
And she did that for the same reason that these justices are not using proper security protocols - because she was not tech savvy and wanted to be able to use a single phone to access all of her emails, regardless of source. I can't wait to hear Republicans scream in defense of the old geezers on the court who are the likeliest culprits in using personal email.
There's a lot of things that need to change. One specifically? Police brutality.
--Colin Kaepernick
User avatar
Ben-Prime
Posts: 2599
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:29 pm
Location: Worldwide Availability
Occupation: Managing People Who Manage Machines
Verified: ✅MamaSaysI'mBonaFide

SCOTUS

#846

Post by Ben-Prime »

I wonder what Alito thinks of the fact that the Satanic Temple telehealth clinic in NM is allegedly going to be named "The Samuel Alito's Mom's Satanic Abortion Clinic"?

Hey, how about that First Amendment, eh? Amirite?
But the sunshine aye shall light the sky,
As round and round we run;
And the truth shall ever come uppermost,
And justice shall be done.

- Charles Mackay, "Eternal Justice"
User avatar
raison de arizona
Posts: 17654
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:21 am
Location: Nothing, Arizona
Occupation: bit twiddler
Verified: ✔️ he/him/his

SCOTUS

#847

Post by raison de arizona »

Ben-Prime wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 1:47 pm I wonder what Alito thinks of the fact that the Satanic Temple telehealth clinic in NM is allegedly going to be named "The Samuel Alito's Mom's Satanic Abortion Clinic"?

Hey, how about that First Amendment, eh? Amirite?
:lol:
TST Health has named the facility “The Samuel Alito’s Mom’s Satanic Abortion Clinic.” “In 1950, Samuel
Alito’s mother did not have options, and look what happened,”
said Malcolm Jarry, the cofounder of
TST. “Prior to 1973, doctors who performed abortions could lose their licenses and go to jail. The clinic’s
name serves to remind people just how important it is to have the right to control one’s body and the
potential ramifications of losing that right.”
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0428/ ... _FINAL.pdf
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adams
User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 10497
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2021 10:17 am

SCOTUS

#848

Post by Kendra »


A little-known conservative activist group led by Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, collected nearly $600,000 in anonymous donations to wage a cultural battle against the left, a Post investigation found.
Gifted link: https://wapo.st/3Znhfgy
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#849

Post by RTH10260 »

a snippet
WaPo wrote:The previously unreported donations to the fledgling group Crowdsourcers for Culture and Liberty were channeled through a right-wing think tank in Washington that agreed to serve as a funding conduit from 2019 until the start of last year, according to documents and interviews. The arrangement, known as a “fiscal sponsorship,” effectively shielded from public view details about Crowdsourcers’ activities and spending, information it would have had to disclose publicly if it operated as a separate nonprofit organization, experts said.

The Post’s investigation sheds new light on the role money from donors who are not publicly identified has played in supporting Ginni Thomas’s political advocacy, long a source of controversy. The funding is the first example of anonymous donors backing her activism since she founded a conservative charity more than a decade ago. She stepped away from that charity amid concerns that it created potential conflicts for her husband on hot-button issues before the court.

Thomas’s activism has set her apart from other spouses of Supreme Court justices. She has allied with numerous people and groups that have interests before the court, and she has dedicated herself to causes involving some of the most polarizing issues in the country.

In 2020, she privately pressed White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to pursue efforts to overturn the presidential election, and she sent emails urging swing-state lawmakers to set aside Joe Biden’s popular-vote victory in awarding electoral votes. When those efforts were revealed by The Post last year, they intensified questions about whether her husband should recuse himself from cases related to the election and attempts to subvert it.
User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 14351
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2021 10:16 am
Location: Switzerland, near the Alps
Verified: ✔️ Eurobot

SCOTUS

#850

Post by RTH10260 »

Book review
Supreme court justices felt tricked by Trump at Kavanaugh swearing-in – book
CNN analyst Joan Biskupic cites unnamed justices saying a White House celebration of Trump’s pick turned overtly political

Martin Pengelly in New York
Sun 2 Apr 2023 20.11 BST

Sitting justices of the US supreme court felt “tricked” and used by Donald Trump when the then president assured them a White House celebration of the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh would not be overtly political, then used the event to harangue those who questioned Kavanaugh’s fitness to sit on the court.

“Most of the justices sat stone faced” as Trump spoke at the ceremonial swearing-in, the CNN correspondent Joan Biskupic writes in a new book, Nine Black Robes: Inside the Supreme Court’s Drive to the Right and Its Historic Consequences.

“Some justices told me later that they were sorry they had gone.”

Biskupic, senior supreme court analyst for CNN, adds: “To varying degrees, the justices felt tricked, made to participate in a political exercise at a time when they were trying to prove themselves impartial guardians of justice, rather than tools of Republican interests.”

Nine Black Robes will be published in the US on Tuesday. The Guardian obtained a copy.

Published excerpts have covered key issues on the court including the controversial treatment of staff for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal justice who died in September 2020 and was swiftly replaced by Amy Coney Barrett, an arch-conservative; rulings on gay rights; and the 2022 Dobbs vs Jackson decision that removed the federal right to abortion.

The appointment of Coney Barrett – jammed through before the election by the same Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, who previously held open a seat for a year and through an election in order to fill it with a conservative – tilted the court 6-3 to the right.



https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/ ... skupic-cnn
Post Reply

Return to “Law and Lawsuits”