Scotus

What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now


even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia’s death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.
via What Happened With Merrick Garland In 2016 And Why It Matters Now
Just a quick reminder.

Intro to the Structure of Lies in Conservative Jurisprudence

Intro to the Structure of Lies in Conservative Jurisprudence

Scalia wasn’t just being hypocritical. He was, quite blatantly, lying. If he actually believed what he claimed to believe in Windsor, then he never would have joined the decision to strike down the Voting Rights Act in Holder. To the contrary, he would have denounced John Roberts’ opinion with venomous glee. To absolutely no one’s surprise, he did not. Because everybody knows he was lying in his Windsor dissent. Everybody knows he’s been lying for decades.

The whole five part series is worth a read. The conservative movement is basically founded on this kind of BS.

At what point with the talking heads on FOX start calling Justice Roberts a liberal?

I love how the SCOTUS upholding an idea that came from the Heritage Foundation is now proof that we are heading toward socialism. Private, for profit insurance plus private, for profit hospitals plus private, for profit doctors equals socialism?

Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics

That friendship is important to determining whether Justice Thomas's interactions with Mr. Crow conflict with the code, said Raymond J. McKoski, a retired state judge in Illinois who wrote a law review article on charitable fund-raising by judges. If Justice Thomas did not "misuse the prestige of office" in getting Mr. Crow to take on the project, it should not be a concern, he said.

"Some of it depends on the conversations that took place," Mr. McKoski said. "Who brought up the idea? How willing was Mr. Crow to do it? What exact questions were asked by Justice Thomas?"


From NYTimes.com

It is to early to ask what did he know and when did he know it. Plus I doubt he would take any criticism as anything other that liberal partisanship. But this is really creepy and there should be in investigation.

Justice Clarence Thomas Should Resign For His Egregious Conflicts of Interest and Unethical Behavior

Leading conservative donor Harlan Crow, whose company often litigates in federal court, donated $500,000 to allow Thomas's wife to start a Tea Party group and he once gave Thomas a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass. The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank which frequently files briefs in Thomas' Court, also gave Thomas a $15,000 gift.If this sounds familiar, it's because America has seen this movie before. Indeed, the Thomas scandal is little more than a remake of the forty year-old gifting scandal that brought down Justice Abe Fortas. Like Thomas, Fortas liked to associate with wealthy individuals with potential business before his Court. And like Thomas, Fortas took inappropriate gifts from his wealthy benefactors.

[…]One of Thomas' benefactors has even filed briefs in his Court since giving Thomas a $15,000 gift, and Thomas has not recused himself from each of these cases.


From Justice Clarence Thomas Should Resign For His Egregious Conflicts of Interest and Unethical Behavior

Why should he resign, it isn’t like he is a Democrat or something.

The audacity of audacity

Imagine Anita Hill’s shock when she checked her voicemail last weekend and found a message from one Virginia Thomas. As in, the wife of Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the man she accused of sexual harassment back in 1991. The New York Times reports that Thomas has confirmed that she made the out-of-the-blue call as a means of “extending an olive branch.” It’s more accurate to say that she extended … a request for an apology.

From The Audacity of audacity Clarence Thomas’ wife calls up Anita Hill - Broadsheet - salon.com


What she did to him? Amazing.

Activism of Thomas's Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues

It is the most partisan role ever for a spouse of a justice on the nation's highest court, and Mrs. Thomas is just getting started. "Liberty Central will be bigger than the Tea Party movement," she told Fox News in April, at a Tea Party rally in Atlanta.

But to some people who study judicial ethics, Mrs. Thomas's activism is raising knotty questions, in particular about her acceptance of large, unidentified contributions for Liberty Central.

From Activism of Thomas's Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues - NYTimes.com

What would the right say if a Liberal judge’s spouse took money from some undisclosed donor for a blatantly political purpose?

Pot, Meet Kettle

the picture that those Republicans painted of Sotomayor doesn't seem to be supported by her actions. The Scotusblog examined her court of appeals decisions in race-related cases and found that she rejected claims of discrimination 80 percent of the time.
Op-Ed Columnist - Pot, Meet Kettle - NYTimes.com
Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent's point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.
scotusblog: Judge Sotomayor and Race - Results from the Full Data Set

I’m waiting for the right wing and the libertarian spit-ballers to shift their arguments against Sotomayor. I’m guessing they’ll claim that the facts don’t actually demonstrate that she is able to be impartial but instead show that she is biased and incompetent at exercising her biases.