#U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts

[minnesotafollower]

Congress Fails To Adopt Important Immigration Legislation

Congress Fails To Adopt Important Immigration Legislation

Previous posts documented Congress’ earlier failure this Session to adopt (a) the Afghan Adjustment Act to improve the legal status of Afghan evacuees in the U.S. and (b) important bipartisan immigration reform, one of which was offered by Senators Kyrsten Sinema (ex-Democrat & now Independent) and Thom Tillis (Rep., NC) that would have addressed the legal fate of so-called Dreamers and provided…

View On WordPress

#Afghan Adjustment Act #Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) #Greisa Martinez Rosas #Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas #Omnibus Bill #President Joe Biden #Title 42 #Trump Administration #U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts #U.S. Department of Homeland Security #U.S. Justice Amy Barett #U.S. Justice Bret Kavanaugh #U.S. Justice Clarence Thomas #U.S. Justice Elena Kagan #U.S. JUstice Ketanji Jackson #U.S. Justice Neal Gorsuch #U.S. Justice Samuel Alito #U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor #U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema #U.S. Senator Mike Lee #U.S. Senator Tester #U.S. Senator Thom tillis #United We Dream #Wall Street Journal #White House Press SecretaryKarine Jean-Pierre

[filosofablogger]

Has SCOTUS Lost Its Conscience?

Much has been said about Justices Alito and Thomas lately — their inappropriate behaviour, symbols of partisanship (flags), and the variety of partisan rulings they have made in the past few years — and our friend Annie has summed it all up neatly for us.  It’s time for We the People to stop whining and demand that our elected leaders (members of Congress) take action … NOW!  Check out her post…

View On WordPress

#Chief Justice John Roberts #corrupttion and partisanship #Justice Clarence Thomas #Justice Samuel Alito #on taking bribes #U.S. Supreme Court

[wilwheaton]

Moreover, recent revelations affirm that there are deep biases among the nakedly pro-Trump justices of this court and that Chief Justice John Roberts knew that when the court took the case. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito should have been recused under any standard of judicial ethics. We already knew that Thomas’ wife, Ginni, was entangled in the run-up to Jan. 6 and was a witness in the congressional investigation of the insurrection. Last Thursday, the shocking news broke that an upside-down flag, a symbol of the “Stop the Steal” conspiracy, flew at Alito’s house shortly after the Jan. 6 insurrection. “Word of the flag filtered back to the court,” reported The New York Times, and yet the incident was hidden from the public for years. Had Alito and Thomas been recused, it would have required the votes of the four other Republican-appointed justices, including Roberts, to take the case. At a minimum, given Roberts’ repeated statements of concern for the credibility of the court, he owes the public a transparent accounting of how Alito and Thomas can be allowed to continue to sit on this case. The public is due similar explanations for their participation in the court’s decision to hear Fischer v. U.S., which challenges convictions of insurrectionists under the obstruction-of-an-official-proceeding statute also at issue in the Trump prosecution.

New York’s speedy Trump trial is a rebuke of the Supreme Court

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Joan McCarter at Daily Kos:

The U.S. Supreme Court heard Donald Trump’s immunity claim in his federal criminal trial for trying to overturn the 2020 election Thursday, and the conservative majority is likely going to give Donald Trump what he wants: a delay of the trial until after the election. If Trump wins again, the conservatives have essentially signaled that they would be open to blanket immunity for him against any future criminal charges.   The fact that Supreme Court justices are suggesting that the president is above the law proves why the court must be reformed. Four of the justices—Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Neil Gorsuch—even went so far as to suggest that special counsel Jack Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional, and they reinforced Trump’s argument that the president is immune. Kavanaugh even told Michael Dreeben, a lawyer from Smith’s office, that it’s a “serious constitutional question whether a criminal statute can apply to the president’s criminal acts.”

That would be the ultimate get-out-of-jail-free card for the chief executive, rubber stamped by the highest court of the land. It’s worth remembering that Thomas refused to recuse himself from this—and most of the Trump election interference cases—despite the fact that his wife, Ginni Thomas, was deeply involved in Trump’s coup attempt. When she testified to the Jan. 6 special congressional committee, she maintained that the election was stolen.  His failure to recuse himself comes after a new ethics code has supposedly been enforced, saying that “a Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” So much for that suggestion from Chief Justice John Roberts. His code has no teeth, which is yet another reason why ethics reform—and indeed court reform and expansion—is essential. 

Joan McCarter writes in Daily Kos that the Trump v. United States "immunity" case is a good reason to reform and expand SCOTUS.

#Court Reform #SCOTUS #Trump v. United States #Donald Trump #SCOTUS Expansion

[beardedmrbean]

Do they ever give up? Those looking to divvy up Americans by race, that is.

In California they tried to get race preferences approved in a 2020 referendum, but voters rejected it 57.2% to 42.8%. This was a stunning rebuke, not only because the rejection came from residents of a blue state but because the losing side had outspent opponents something like 14 to 1.

In 2023 the Supreme Court weighed in with a landmark ruling that barred colleges from treating people as members of a racial group instead of as individuals—and cast constitutional doubt on all race-based preferences. “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. Couldn’t be clearer, right?

Not in California. Undaunted state Assemblyman Corey Jackson is pushing a bill called ACA7. It takes aim at the state ban on race preferences that voters put in the constitution in 1996 when they passed Proposition 209. Californians reaffirmed Proposition 209 three years ago at the ballot box.

The language the voters agreed to and the activists hate reads as follows: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Unlike the 2020 effort, the new bill would leave that language intact. Instead, it would add a provision allowing the governor to create “exceptions.” Effectively that would gut the ban.

Apparently, the lesson the advocates of state-sponsored discrimination have taken from their defeat is that if at first you don’t succeed, try something sneakier.

Here is Mr. Jackson’s press release summarizing the bill: “ACA7 will allow . . . the Governor to issue waivers to public agencies that wish to use state funds for research-based, or research-informed and culturally specific interventions to increase life expectancy, improve educational outcomes, and lift people out of poverty for specific ethnic groups and marginalized genders.”

Gail Heriot is a University of San Diego law professor who sits on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and was a leader of both Proposition 209 and the “no” effort on the 2020 referendum. She has launched a petition with Extremely Concerned Californians at change.org opposing the measure.

“ACA7’s proponents are hoping that voters will be fooled into thinking that it is just a small exception,” Ms. Heriot says. “In fact, it gives the governor enormous power to nullify Proposition 209.”

Edward Blum agrees. As the founder of Students for Fair Admissions, he spearheaded the lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina that killed race preferences in college admissions.

“Racial preferences are never legally justified because some specious ‘research’ report concludes it would be beneficial to a certain race,” says Mr. Blum. “This exemption will trigger endless litigation that will polarize California citizens by race.”

But sowing discord is a feature, not a bug. As the bill was making its way through the Assembly, Mr. Jackson got in a spat with Bill Essayli—a Republican who is also the first Muslim elected to the Assembly. Mr. Essayli pointed out that the majority of Californian voters disagree with state-sanctioned discrimination. “I fundamentally disagree with this backwards policy,” he later tweeted.

Mr. Jackson responded in his own tweet: “This is a perfect example how a minority can become a white supremacist by doing everything possible to win white supremacist and fascist affection.”

ACA7 passed the state Assembly in September. If it passes the Senate, it will be on the ballot in November. If Californians vote yea, it will become part of the constitution.

But all is not lost. The 2020 referendum awakened a sleeping giant: the Asian-American community. Asian-Americans quickly realized (as the Harvard case drove home) that they and their children are the primary victims whenever race is substituted for merit. Asian-Americans are more aware and organized than they were in 2020. They aren’t likely to be fooled by talk of “exceptions” based on “research.”

It also isn’t a given that ACA7 will make it through the state Senate. Though Democrats enjoy a 32-8 majority, polls consistently show race preferences are unpopular. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s support will be crucial.

Though he has no formal role in the constitutional process, some think the bill will go nowhere if Mr. Newsom doesn’t want it to. If it does make it to the ballot this November, he’ll be under immense pressure to endorse it. That’s another reason the Senate should kill ACA7 now, Ms. Heriot says.

“California voters need to make sure their state senators know where they stand—through emails, phone calls, letters, and petitions,” Ms. Heriot says. “Once the senators understand that, they will realize putting ACA7 on the ballot is not in their interest.”

#nunyas news

[reasonsforhope]

"The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a surprising 5-4 ruling in favor of Black voters in a congressional redistricting case from Alabama, with two conservative justices joining liberals in rejecting a Republican-led effort to weaken a landmark voting rights law.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh aligned with the court’s liberals in affirming a lower-court ruling that found a likely violation of the Voting Rights Act in an Alabama congressional map with one majority Black seat out of seven districts in a state where more than one in four residents is Black. The state now will have to draw a new map for next year’s elections.

The decision was keenly anticipated for its potential effect on control of the closely divided U.S. House of Representatives. Because of the ruling, new maps are likely in Alabama and Louisiana that could allow Democratic-leaning Black voters to elect their preferred candidates in two more congressional districts.

The outcome was unexpected in that the court had allowed the challenged Alabama map to be used for the 2022 elections, and in arguments last October the justices appeared willing to make it harder to challenge redistricting plans as racially discriminatory under the Voting Rights Act of 1965...

The case stems from challenges to Alabama’s seven-district congressional map, which included one district in which Black voters form a large enough majority that they have the power to elect their preferred candidate. The challengers said that one district is not enough, pointing out that overall, Alabama’s population is more than 25% Black.

A three-judge court, with two appointees of former President Donald Trump, had little trouble concluding that the plan likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the votes of Black Alabamians. That “likely” violation was the standard under which the preliminary injunction was issued by the three-judge panel, which ordered a new map drawn.

But the state quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, where five conservative justices prevented the lower-court ruling from going forward. At the same time, the court decided to hear the Alabama case.

Louisiana’s congressional map had separately been identified as probably discriminatory by a lower court. That map, too, remained in effect last year and now will have to be redrawn.

The National Redistricting Foundation said in a statement that its pending lawsuits over congressional districts in Georgia and Texas also could be affected."

-via AP, June 8, 2023

#scotus #supreme court #united states #us politics #voting #voting matters #voting rights #voting rights act #racial justice #gerrymandering #alabama #louisiana #georgia #texas #good news #hope #also Pat Robertson died today - good news really is coming in threes!

[kp777]

By Jessica Corbett

Common Dreams

April 24, 2024

"At its core, this Supreme Court decision will reflect who we are becoming as a society."

Less than a month after a key abortion pill hearing, the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments for another major reproductive rights case—one out of Idaho that could impact healthcare for pregnant women and people across the country.

Idaho is among the over 20 states that have tightened restrictions on abortion since the high court's right-wing majority reversed Roe v. Wade nearly two years ago with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Since August 2022, abortions have been banned in the state except for reported cases of rape or incest or when "necessary to prevent the death" of the pregnant person.

"If the court does not uphold emergency abortion care protections, this ruling will have devastating consequences for pregnant people."

Before Idaho's near-total ban on abortion took effect, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill barred enforcement of it to the extent that it conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a 1986 federal law requiring emergency departments that accept Medicare to provide "necessary stabilizing treatment" to any patient with an emergency medical condition.

The Biden administration argues that such care includes abortion; Idaho's Republican policymakers—backed by the far-right Christian Alliance Defending Freedom—disagree. The U.S. Supreme Court in January paused Winmill's order and agreed to hear arguments in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States.

As The New York Times reported Wednesday:

In a lively argument, questions by the justices suggested a divide along ideological lines, as well as a possible split by gender on the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, appeared skeptical that Idaho's law, which bars doctors from providing abortions unless a woman's life is in danger or in specific nonviable pregnancies, superseded the federal law. The argument also raised a broader question about whether some of the conservative justices, particularly Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., may be prepared to embrace language of fetal personhood, that is, the notion that a fetus would have the same rights as a pregnant woman.

Also noting Barrett's apparent alignment with the three liberal women on the court, Law Dork's Chris Geidner predicted "it comes down to" Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow right-winger Brett Kavanaugh.

"Already, we see women miscarrying and giving birth to stillborn infants in restrooms and in their cars after hospitals have turned them away, and medical professionals put in impossible positions by extremist lawmakers," said MomsRising executive director and CEO Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, citing Associated Pressreporting from last week.

"Of all the horrors SCOTUS unleashed with its appalling, dangerous, massively unpopular ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the threat that pregnant people—most of whom are moms—will be denied emergency medical care is among the worst," she asserted. "An adverse ruling in this case will mean emergency rooms can deny urgently needed care to people experiencing serious pregnancy complications that can destroy their health, end their fertility, and take their lives."

Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, similarly stressed that under a decision that favors the Idaho GOP, "pregnant people will suffer severe, life-altering health consequences, and even death."

"We're already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, where medical evacuations to transport patients to other states for the care they need have dramatically spiked since the Supreme Court allowed state politicians to block emergency abortion care," she noted.

The has also been an exodus of healthcare providers. Pointing out that those who violate Idaho's ban face five years in prison, The Guardian reported Wednesday that "between 2022, when Roe was overturned, and 2023, about 50 OB-GYNs moved out of the state."

As Republican lawmakers in various states have ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom since Dobbs, states that still allow abortions have seen an influx of "healthcare refugees." A Planned Parenthood spokesperson confirmed in January that about 30% of its abortion patients in Nevada—which borders Idaho—are from other states.

"With several of Nevada's bordering states enforcing abortion bans, pushing many people seeking care to our state, we've seen firsthand the devastation that anti-abortion policies are already wreaking," Reproductive Freedom for All director of Nevada campaigns Denise Lopez said Tuesday. "The Supreme Court must not allow us to spiral further into this healthcare crisis."

If the high court rules in favor of Idaho's Republican lawmakers, she warned, "all states will be impacted, even in places like Nevada with more than 4 in 5 voters supporting reproductive freedom."

Destiny Lopez, acting co-CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, declared that "at its core, this Supreme Court decision will reflect who we are becoming as a society: Are we okay with requiring pregnant individuals who face severe complications to suffer life-threatening health consequences rather than granting them access to abortion? Are we okay with forcing doctors to choose between violating federal law by not providing emergency abortion care or violating state law if they do?"

"If the court does not uphold emergency abortion care protections, this ruling will have devastating consequences for pregnant people—particularly Black and Brown folks, immigrants, people with lower incomes, those without health insurance, and LGBTQ+ communities—while further emboldening extremists," she emphasized.

Arguments in the case have sparked multiple demonstrations, from a weekend rally in Boise, Idaho to a Wednesday gathering outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., where Women's March organized a die-in to highlight the potential consequences of the forthcoming ruling.

"It's a horrifying time to be someone who needs critical abortion care in America right now," said Women's March executive director Rachel O'Leary Carmona. "The GOP is chipping away at women's bodily autonomy and livelihoods one illegitimate court case at a time—from fast-tracking a case on the authorization of a medication that's been safely administered for decades last month, to now bringing the fate of emergency abortion care to a Supreme Court captured by their radical, anti-choice agenda."

"We know what these cases really are: They're part of a series of efforts by Christian nationalist politicians to do anything they can to control women's bodies and cut back women's decisions about their healthcare, their family planning, and their lives," she added.

Similar warnings about far-right Christian nationalist attacks on a range of rights have dominated political contests this cycle—including the race for the White House. In November, Democratic President Joe Biden, who supports access to abortion care, is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump, who brags about appointing three of the six justices who reversed Roe.

The case has renewed arguments for considering changes to the country's top court, which over the past few years has not only seen plummeting levels of public trust but also been rocked by repeated ethics scandals.

"Idaho's abortion ban is a direct consequence of the court's radical decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow partisan state legislatures to determine Americans' access to abortion care," said Stand Up America managing director of policy and political affairs Brett Edkins. "If the Supreme Court once again sides with anti-abortion extremists, it will be further proof that this court is radically out of touch with the American people and must be reformed."

#u.s. supreme court #abortion rights #maternal health #idaho #roe vs. wade

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A group of House Democrats is pushing a legislative proposal that would establish an investigative body within the U.S. Supreme Court to probe potential ethical improprieties in the wake of another Court-related controversy.

On Tuesday, New York Democratic Reps. Dan Goldman and Jerry Nadler and other lawmakers introduced the “Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act,” which among other things would create an investigative body that reports to Congress and establish an ethics counsel to advise justices on ethics rules, including recusal and disclosure requirements.

Lawmakers say the goal is to provide transparency and accountability after recent incidents raised ethical concerns about some members of the Court.

The group cites the incident involving Justice Samuel Alito as an example. Alito faced calls to recuse himself from Jan. 6 and 2020 election-related cases after the New York Times reported in May that his household flew an upside-down flag — a symbol associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement — in January of 2021; and flew another right-wing flag last year.

The incidents prompted Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) to send a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts requesting that he take steps to ensure that Alito recuses himself in any cases related to the 2020 presidential election and the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol “including the question of former President Trump’s immunity from prosecution …” The immunity case is pending before the Court after oral argument was held in April.

In his own letter, Alito responded by blaming his wife for the flags. He also said he would not recuse himself, citing the Court’s code of conduct adopted last year:

“B. DISQUALIFICATION. (1) A Justice is presumed impartial and has an obligation to sit unless disqualified. (2) A Justice should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is, where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.” A reasonable person who isn’t motivated by “political or ideological considerations” would conclude that the incidents don’t warrant a recusal, Alito says in the letter.

But a number of lawmakers and Court observers seem to disagree.

“Ethics policies at the Supreme Court should be robust and consistent,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy group Fix the Court, “and the current hodgepodge … is far from a best practice.”

Past attempts, however, to bring stronger accountability to the nation’s highest court have been unsuccessful. Last year, ProPublica published an investigation detailing the perks and lavish gifts Justice Clarence Thomas received from Harlan Crow, a real estate tycoon and prominent GOP donor, that Thomas did not disclose. Legislation introduced that year that would require the Court to adopt a code of conduct and create a mechanism to investigate alleged code violations failed to gain traction.

In November, the Court established a code of conduct. But the onus seems to be on the justices to abide by the standards. Alito cited this code — the “Disqualification” section — in his decision not to recuse himself.

#us politics #news #democracy docket #2024 #us supreme court #ethics rules #recusals #rep. Dan Goldman #rep. Jerry Nadler #Supreme Court Ethics and Investigations Act #Justice Samuel Alito #justice clarence thomas #sen. Dick Durbin #sen. Sheldon Whitehouse #Justice John Roberts #Gabe Roth #Fix the Court

[odinsblog]

Stalking is so closely correlated with lethal violence that experts refer to it as “slow motion homicide”: More than half of all female homicide victims in the U.S. were stalked before they were killed. Despite the terrifying and dangerous consequences, many victims of stalking do not report the abuse to law enforcement for fear they will not be taken seriously.

The reasonableness of that fear was vividly illustrated by the Supreme Court oral arguments in Counterman v. Colorado on Wednesday morning, as members of the highest court of the land joked about messages sent by a stalker to his victim, bemoaned the increasing “hypersensitivity” of society, and brushed aside consideration of the actual harm of stalking to focus on the potential harm of stalking laws.

For nearly two years, Billy Raymond Counterman sent thousands of unsolicited and unwanted Facebook direct messages to C.W., a local musician, ultimately driving her to abandon her career and leave the state. Counterman, who had previously served time in federal prison for making violent threats against his ex-wife and her family, argues that his conduct towards C.W. was free speech protected by the First Amendment. Counterman maintains, supported by amicus briefs from influential civil libertarian organizations such as the ACLU, the EFF, and FIRE, that stalking cannot be criminally prohibited except when the government can prove that the stalker subjectively intended to terrify his victim. The state of Colorado, supported by amicus briefs from First Amendment scholars, stalking experts, and domestic violence victim advocates, argues that it is enough to prove that the stalking would be terrifying to a reasonable person in light of the totality of the circumstances. If the court rules in Counterman’s favor, delusional stalking—no matter how objectively terrifying or threatening—will be transformed into an inviolable constitutional right.

During oral argument, Chief Justice John Roberts quoted a handful of the thousands of unsolicited messages Counterman sent to C.W. “Staying in cyber life is going to kill you,’” Roberts read aloud. After a pause, he joked, “I can’t promise I haven’t said that,” prompting laughter from other justices and the audience. Picking out another message, which he described as an “image of liquor bottles” captioned as “a guy’s version of edible arrangements,” Roberts challenged Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser to “say this in a threatening way,” leading to more laughter from the court. And the laughs didn’t stop there: Counterman’s attorney, John Elwood, shared with the court that his mother would routinely tell him to “drop dead” as a child, but “you know, I was never in fear because of that.”

(continue reading)

#politics #scotus #john roberts #stalking #femicide #misogyny #rape culture #war on women #counterman v colorado #stalkers

[deadpresidents]

Has any president ever not been given the oath of office by the chief justice of the supreme court

Yes. The Constitution does not specify who must administer the oath of office to the President and government officials who are required to swear (or affirm) an oath can essentially be sworn in by any federal or state judge or even a notary public.

The oath of office has been administered eight times by someone other than the Chief Justice of the United States -- usually when a Vice President has assumed office upon a President's death and it was necessary to quickly locate somebody who could administer the oath. George Washington was also sworn in by someone other than the Chief Justice at both of his inaugurations. In fact, not only was there no Chief Justice at the time of Washington's first inauguration but there was literally no federal judiciary (and, obviously, no federal judges). The Judiciary Act establishing the Supreme Court wasn't enacted until September 1789 -- almost five months into President Washington's first term -- and that's when the first members of the Supreme Court were nominated and confirmed.

Of course, the Chief Justice of the United States has been the person swearing in the President the vast majority of the time. John Marshall, the longest-serving Chief Justice in American history (1801-1835), administered the oath of office more times than anyone else -- nine times to five different Presidents. However, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (served from 1836-1864) administered the oath to more individual Presidents than anyone else -- seven times to seven different Presidents. The nation's first two Chief Justices -- John Jay (1789-1795) and John Rutledge (August-December 1795) -- are the only two Chiefs who never administered the oath to a President.

Here is the list of Presidential Inaugurations not conducted by the Chief Justice of the United States along with the person who administered the oath of office: •GEORGE WASHINGTON's 1st Inauguration (April 30, 1789): Robert Livingston, Chancellor of New York (The Chancellor of New York was the presiding judge of the New York Court of Chancery, the highest court in New York State from 1701-1847) •GEORGE WASHINGTON's 2nd Inauguration (March 4, 1793): William Cushing, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court •JOHN TYLER's Inauguration (April 4, 1841): William Cranch, Chief Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia (Tyler assumed office upon the death of President William Henry Harrison. Interestingly, Cranch was the nephew of John and Abigail Adams.) •MILLARD FILLMORE's Inauguration (July 9, 1850): William Cranch, Chief Judge of the U.S. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia (Fillmore assumed office upon the death of President Taylor.) •CHESTER A. ARTHUR's Inauguration (September 20, 1881): John R. Brady, Justice of the New York State Supreme Court (Arthur assumed office upon the death of President Garfield. Brady was the first judge that could be tracked down to administer the oath at Arthur's home in New York City after notification of Garfield's death arrived shortly after midnight on Sept. 20, 1881. After returning to Washington, D.C. on September 22, 1881, Arthur was administered the oath of office again in a formal ceremony by Chief Justice Morrison Waite.) •THEODORE ROOSEVELT's 1st Inauguration (September 14, 1901): John R. Hazel, Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Roosevelt assumed office upon the death of President McKinley.) •CALVIN COOLIDGE's 1st Inauguration (August 3, 1923): John Calvin Coolidge Sr., Justice of the Peace and Notary Public in Plymouth, Vermont (Coolidge assumed office upon the death of President Harding. Coolidge was staying at his father's home in Vermont when he was notified shortly after midnight on August 3, 1923 that President Harding had died a few hours earlier in San Francisco. Since Coolidge's father was a Notary Public, he administered the oath of office to his son in the sitting room of the family home. After being sworn in by his father, President Coolidge promptly went back to sleep.) •LYNDON B. JOHNSON's 1st Inauguration (November 22, 1963): Sarah T. Hughes, Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Johnson assumed office upon the death of President Kennedy. Johnson was in Dallas with Kennedy when the President was assassinated, and he was sworn in as President aboard Air Force One on the airport tarmac of Love Field before leaving Texas to return to Washington with Kennedy's body.)

#History #Presidents #Presidential Oath of Office #Oath of Office #Presidential Inaugurations #Inaugurations #Swearing-in the President #Presidential Oath #Politics #Chief Justice of the United States #Supreme Court #Chief Justice #Constitution #POTUS #Presidents and Chief Justices #Judiciary #SCOTUS

[foreverlogical]

A Washington-based married couple's challenge to an obscure provision of the 2017 Republican tax law has the potential to become "the most important tax case in a century," with far-reaching implications for federal revenues, key social programs, and Congress' constitutional authority to impose levies on income.

That's according to a new report released Wednesday by the Roosevelt Institute and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP).

The policy groups estimated that if the conservative-dominated U.S. Supreme Court sides with the plaintiffs in Moore v. United States—which the justices are set to take up in December—nearly 400 multinational corporations could collectively receive more than $270 billion in tax relief, further enriching behemoths such as Apple, Microsoft, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Google.

The Roosevelt Institute and ITEP also found that Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito own stock in 19 companies that are poised to receive a combined $30 billion in tax breaks if the judges strike down the 2017 law's mandatory repatriation tax, a one-time levy targeting earnings that multinational corporations had piled up overseas.

But the case could have impacts well beyond a repeal of the repatriation tax, which was projected to generate $340 billion in federal revenue over a decade.

Depending on the scope of the justices' decision, the new report argues, the Supreme Court could "suddenly supplant Congress as a major American tax policymaker, putting at legal jeopardy much of the architecture of laws that prevent corporations and individuals from avoiding taxes, and introducing great uncertainty about our democracy's ability to tax large corporations and the most affluent."

"At the best of times, blowing a $340 billion hole in the federal budget would be catastrophic," Matt Gardner, a senior fellow at ITEP and a co-author of the new report, said in a statement. "And if the court invalidates the transition tax in its Moore decision, that's exactly what would happen: possibly the costliest Supreme Court decision of all time. And it would be hard to identify a less deserving set of tax cut beneficiaries than the companies that would reap at least $271 billion from repealing this tax."

"The Roberts Court could decide with the stroke of a pen to simultaneously forgive big business decades of tax dues."

Charles and Kathleen Moore brought their challenge to the repatriation provision after they were hit with a roughly $15,000 tax bill stemming from their stake in an Indian farm equipment company. As the Tax Policy Center recently observed, the Indian firm is a "controlled foreign corporation (CFC), or a foreign corporation whose ownership or voting rights are more than 50% owned by U.S. persons who each own at least 10%."

The Moores' cause has been championed by billionaire-backed organizations and corporate lobbying groups, including the Manhattan Institute–which is chaired by billionaire hedge fund mogul Paul Singer—and the powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

"That such a case involving such modest sums would make it all the way to the high court indicates that there is much more at play than a single family's tax refund," ITEP's Gardner and Spandan Marasini and the Roosevelt Institute's Niko Lusiani note in the new report.

The plaintiffs' legal team argues that because the Moores' shares in the Indian firm were not "realized"—they did not sell or receive a distribution from the company—they should not have been on the hook for the repatriation tax.

"The government, on the other hand, argues that almost a century of tax law precedent has established Congress' broad authority to decide when and how to tax income, even without a specific realization event," the new report explains. "What's more, the income was clearly realized by the corporation, which is sufficient for income taxation of shareholders under various provisions of the existing tax code."

While it's possible that the Supreme Court will rule narrowly on the specifics of the Moores' situation, the report authors cautioned that the justices "could also issue a broad decision that taxing income—of an individual or a corporate shareholder—requires realization, and that income taxation on multiple years of accrued income is unconstitutional."

Such a sweeping ruling could preemptively ban a wealth tax—an outcome that right-wing supporters of the Moores have explicitly advocated.

"This case presents the court with an ideal opportunity to clarify that taxes on unrealized gains, such as wealth taxes, are direct taxes that are unconstitutional if not apportioned among the states," the Manhattan Institute declared in a May amicus brief.

A broad ruling by the high court could also imperil key elements of the existing tax code, according to ITEP and the Roosevelt Institute.

"One of the most established of these pillars is known as Subpart F, which was enacted in 1962 to prevent American corporations from avoiding taxation through offshore entities or controlled foreign corporations," the new report says. "Provisions related to Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI), the branch profits tax; tax treatment of corporate debt; and others could be uprooted by five justices."

"The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax—enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act to create a basic corporate tax floor—as well as international efforts to curb international tax avoidance could be made constitutionally invalid," the report adds.

The analysis stresses that the consequences of a broad ruling in the upcoming case would be profound, affecting more than just a handful of corporate tax provisions.

"In Moore," the report warns, "the Roberts Court could decide with the stroke of a pen to simultaneously forgive big business decades of tax dues, increase the federal deficit over the long run, jeopardize future public revenue and essential social programs, escalate these multinational companies' already sizeable after-tax profits, and further enrich their shareholders."

[filosofablogger]

Don't Be Fooled!

Long overdue headlines yesterday: Supreme Court Adopts Ethics Code After Reports of Undisclosed Gifts and Travel (New York Times) Supreme Court, under pressure, issues ethics code specific to justices (The Washington Post) Supreme Court adopts modified ethics code after pressure from Hill Dems (Fox ‘News’) The Supreme Court adopts first-ever code of ethics (NPR) Under fire, US Supreme Court…

View On WordPress

#Chief Justice John Roberts #ethics code #Harlan Crow #Justice Clarence Thomas #Justice Samuel Alito #Leonard Leo #Robert Reich #U.S. Supreme Court

[wilwheaton]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) criticized Chief Justice John Roberts’ fixation on the “fairness” of the Biden administration’s student debt relief plan Thursday, which he and his right-wing peers brought up repeatedly during oral arguments earlier this week. “When Justice Roberts asks about fairness rather than focusing on statutory interpretation or constitutional issues, he’s becoming a super legislator. That’s not his job,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told TPM. “It is not the role of the United States Supreme Court to make those judgements.” “And that means this Court is trying to pull more power into itself and away from the elected officials whose jobs it is to make those decisions,” she added. “This is not about a Court that is promoting small government. This is about a Court that is promoting big court.” Roberts, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, repeatedly asked the U.S. Solicitor General about the fairness of the plan, with Roberts conjuring up a hypothetical person who forewent college to start a lawn care business to torque up the sympathy.

Warren Accuses John Roberts Of Acting As ‘Super Legislator’ During Student Debt Oral Arguments

Expand the court and impeach the illegitimate Trump appointees.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jennifer Bendery at HuffPost:

WASHINGTON ― Top Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday told Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts they want to meet with him “as soon as possible” to ensure that Justice Samuel Alito recuses himself from cases relating to the 2020 election after two recent news reports revealed Alito flew flags at two separate residences that insurrectionists at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, had also carried. “By displaying the upside-down and ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flags outside his homes, Justice Alito actively engaged in political activity, failed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, and failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,” Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) wrote to Roberts in a new letter.

“He also created reasonable doubt about his impartiality and his ability to fairly discharge his duties in cases related to the 2020 presidential election and January 6th attack on the Capitol,” they wrote. “His recusal in these matters is both necessary and required.” (Durbin and Whitehouse are the committee chair and the chair of the subcommittee that deals with federal courts, respectively.) The senators also renewed their call on the Supreme Court to adopt “an enforceable code of conduct for Supreme Court justices.” The court currently has a code of ethics, which it adopted last year and only after intense public scrutiny, but it has no teeth. Still, under that code, which the justices themselves put together, they are required to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Durbin and other Democrats have been demanding the Supreme Court adopt an enforceable code of ethics for years. But they drastically stepped up their calls for action after last year’s bombshell reports by ProPublica that Alito and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas had accepted lavish and undisclosed gifts from wealthy political donors for years. Democrats have also urged passage of a bill, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal and Transparency Act, which would require justices to adopt a binding code of conduct and improve transparency when a justice has ties to a party or amicus before the court. But in a polarized and narrowly divided Senate, that bill is going nowhere. And while Durbin has the authority to subpoena Alito or other Supreme Court justices to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to address ethics questions, he has not done that.

If Durbin were to try to subpoena Alito, he wouldn’t be able to do it unilaterally. He’d need the top Republican on the committee to sign off, which would not happen in this case, or a majority vote in the committee. It’s not clear if all 10 Democrats on the committee would vote to do this.

Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin and Sheldon Whitehouse are urging SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts to meet with them to discuss the ethics breaches of SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito.

#SCOTUS #Ethics #Samuel Alito #John Roberts #Sheldon Whitehouse #Dick Durbin

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

June 29, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUN 30, 2023

Today the Supreme Court handed down a decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. Students for Fair Admissions is an organization designed to fight against affirmative action in college admissions, and today it achieved its goal: the Supreme Court decided that policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that consider race as a factor in admissions are unconstitutional because they violate the guarantee of equal protection before the law, established by the Fourteenth Amendment. 

The deciding votes were 6 to 2 in the case of Harvard—Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused herself because she had been a member of Harvard’s board of overseers—and 6 to 3 in the case of the University of North Carolina. 

In the case of the two schools at the center of this Supreme Court decision, admissions officers initially evaluated students on a number of categories. Harvard used six: academic, extracurricular, athletic, school support, personal, and overall. Then, after the officers identified an initial pool of applicants who were all qualified for admission, they cut down the list to a final class. At Harvard, those on the list to be cut were evaluated on four criteria: legacy status, recruited athlete status, financial aid eligibility, and race. Today, the Supreme Court ruled that considering race as a factor in that categorical fashion is unconstitutional. 

The court did not rule that race could not be considered at all. In the majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”

How much this will matter for colleges and universities is unclear. Journalist James Fallows pointed out that there are between 3,500 and 5,500 colleges in the U.S. and all but 100 of them admit more than 50% of the students who apply. Only about 70 admit fewer than a third of all applicants. That is, according to a study by the Pew Research Center, “the great majority of schools, where most Americans get their postsecondary education, admit most of the people who apply to them.” 

The changing demographics of the country are also changing student populations. As an example, in 2022, more than 33% of the students at the University of Texas at Austin, which automatically admits any Texas high school student in the top 6% of their class, were from historically underrepresented populations. And universities that value diversity may continue to try to create a diverse student body.

But in the past, when schools have eliminated affirmative action, Black student numbers have dropped off, both because of changes in admission policies and because Black students have felt unwelcome in those schools. This matters to the larger pattern of American society. As Black and Brown students are cut off from elite universities, they are also cut off from the pipeline to elite graduate schools and jobs. 

More is at stake in this case than affirmative action in university admissions. The decision involves the central question of whether the law is colorblind or whether it can be used to fix long-standing racial inequality. Does the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 to enable the federal government to overrule state laws that discriminated against Black Americans, allow the courts to enforce measures to address historic discrimination? 

Those joining the majority in the decision say no. They insist that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment after the Civil War intended only that it would make men of all races equal before the law, and that considering race in college admissions undermines that principle by using race in a negative manner, involving racial stereotyping (by considering race by category), and lacking an endpoint. “Many universities have for too long wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned, but the color of their skin. This Nation’s constitutional history does not tolerate that choice,” the majority opinion reads. 

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that affirmative action actually made racial tensions worse because it “highlights our racial differences with pernicious effect,” prolonging “the asserted need for racial discrimination.” He wrote: “under our Constitution, race is irrelevant.” “The great failure of this country was slavery and its progeny,” Thomas wrote. “And, the tragic failure of this Court was its misinterpretation of the Reconstruction Amendments.” 

Those justices who dissented—Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—pointed to the profound racial discrimination that continued after the Civil War and insist that the law has the power to address that discrimination in order to achieve the equality promised by the Fourteenth Amendment. “The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrines a guarantee of racial equality,” Sotomayor’s opinion begins. “The Court long ago concluded that this guarantee can be enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been, colorblind.” 

In her concurring opinion concerning the UNC case, Jackson noted that “[g]ulf-sized race-based gaps exist with respect to the health, wealth, and well-being of American citizens. They were created in the distant past, but have indisputably been passed down to the present day through the generations. Every moment these gaps persist is a moment in which this great country falls short of actualizing one of its foundational principles—the ‘self-evident’ truth that all of us are created equal.” 

If this fight sounds political, it should. It mirrors the current political climate in which right-wing activists reject the idea of systemic racism that the U.S. has acknowledged and addressed in the law since the 1950s. They do not believe that the Fourteenth Amendment supports the civil rights legislation that tries to guarantee equality for historically marginalized populations, and in today’s decision the current right-wing majority on the court demonstrated that it is willing to push that political agenda at the expense of settled law. As recently as 2016, the court reaffirmed that affirmative action, used since the 1960s, is constitutional. Today’s court just threw that out.  

The split in the court focused on history, and the participants’ anger was palpable and personal. Thomas claimed that “[a]s [Jackson] sees things, we are all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society, with the original sin of slavery and the historical subjugation of black Americans still determining our lives today.” Her solution, he writes, “is to unquestioningly accede to the view of elite experts and reallocate society’s riches by racial means as necessary to ‘level the playing field,’ all as judged by racial metrics…. I strongly disagree.” 

Jackson responded that “Justice Thomas’s prolonged attack…responds to a dissent I did not write in order to assail an admissions program that is not the one UNC has crafted.” 

She noted that Black Americans had always simply wanted the same right to take care of themselves that white Americans had enjoyed, but it had been denied them. She recounted the nation’s long history of racial discrimination and excoriated the majority for pretending it didn’t exist. “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life. And having so detached itself from this country’s actual past and present experiences, the Court has now been lured into interfering with the crucial work that UNC and other institutions of higher learning are doing to solve America’s real-world problems.”

“Today, the Supreme Court upended decades of precedent that enabled America’s colleges and universities to build vibrant diverse environments where students are prepared to lead and learn from one another,” the Biden administration said in a statement, warning that “the Court’s decision threatens to move the country backwards.” In a speech to reporters, Biden called for new standards that take into consideration the adversity—including poverty—a student has overcome when selecting among qualified candidates, a system that would work “for everyone… from Appalachia to Atlanta and far beyond.”

“While the Court can render a decision, it cannot change what America stands for.”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#Kevin Siers #history #Brown vs Board of Education #minorities #racism #injustice #affirmative action #heather cox richardson #Letters From An American

[savedfromsalvation]