I had lunch today with a group of lawyers (at a professional association meeting); during the conversation prior to the program, there was discussion of the Supreme Court’s “leak” investigation. Everyone who spoke recognized it as lacking credibility, even with the so-called independent “blessing” of the Chernoff group. It was apparent to everyone at the table that the report, by implication, accused a justice/spouse of the leak. Logic certainly supports that inference too.
I agree with you that the chief justice should resign for the good of the Court as well as the country. So should the justice implicated in the report. The “cover up” effort does not pass the “smell test.”
Since I find it impossible to believe that Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan leaked the draft ruling, I wish they would abandon judicial decorum (previously abandoned by Mitch McConnell and the appointments of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett plus overruling Roe v. Wade) and sign the same affidavit the employees were required to sign. Then let's pass the popcorn and watch the fireworks among the remaining justices! :-))
Andrew, While, on one level, I love your idea, for better or worse, I don’t imagine any justice breaking precedent by publicly appearing to disparage the bench.
Quite right Barbara. The putative liberals won't sign such a document because they don't want to put their colleagues and friends on the spot; those of the notional conservatives who aren't guilty won't sign because of their desire and perceived need to protect their guilty colleague and the guilty one won't sign because he/she doesn't want to spend time in prison for perjury. This is as good a case for an independent Prosecutor as I can imagine if there was a real desire to resolve the issue and restore some semblance of respect for the Court. I have real doubts about the existence of such desire.
Dave, In my view, identifying the leaker won’t resolve the corruption that has ensued from the hold the Federalist Society enjoys over the appointment of justices.
Incredible and very plausible suggestion, AB. Your suggestion makes so much sense that I am(perhaps foolishly) hopeful It will be followed by Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan.
I read that too, Robert. Oh, imagine Intrater getting “hooked” and swindled by Santos. Now and only now, is he blaming Georgie for his problems. This all stinks to high heaven!
I think you are right, Marlene. wondering if the cover up is to do with Russian money financing Santos? I read a while back he had made favorable comments about the Russians on Social media. His benefactor cousin is Russian. .
Exactly! For instance, I am opposed to capital punishment in all circumstances, but I might make exceptions for child molesters and people who abuse animals.
It might be more interesting to sentence whatever his name is to several years of cleaning cages at animal rescue centers. Since they are public places, there would always be someone around to document his activity and ensure he's doing the job properly.
Off-topic: HCR recounts epic trolling by Bill Foster (D.IL), who is a nuclear scientist in real life: “As the only recipient of the Wilson Prize for High-Energy Particle Accelerator Physics serving in Congress, it can get lonely. Not anymore!... I’m thrilled to be joined on the Science Committee by my Republican colleague Dr. George Santos, winner of not only the Nobel Prize, but also the Fields Medal—the top prize in Mathematics—for his groundbreaking work with imaginary numbers.”
Scrolling down that tweet the last line was revealed and I really had one of the best laughs I've had in a long time. Of course, the whole list of "accomplishments" is clearly a commentary on Santos' lies, but when it's closed with the punch line, it's hysterically funny.
Thank you for the research! At first, I disagreed with the assertions that the Democrats should have known about this imposters dirty laundry. Then I recall how the gop attacked HCR since the very day her husband, when he was first elected as President, announced she would lead a team to create a health care plan. Decades of efforts to smear her name. The misdeeds, lies, and crimes of Santos were out there to be covered yet only ONE local Long Island newspaper ran the story of the con man! I guess the Dems assumed he did’t have a chance! Hmmmm… come to think of it election night of 2016 most people believed the orange amoral creature didn’t have a chance!
I want to know what Dems are doing to ensure the replacement is a democrat. They'll have to have another election, right? So nibble nibble nibble we should be working to reduce the Republican majority and the entire force of the democrat population and political machinery should be focused on who is next in that district - finding an electable democrat and getting their name and True credentials out there.
Yes, for sure, Lou. They shouldn't take anything for granted in politics. The silence from the GOP is deafening when it comes to wrongdoing in their midst, but they scream bloody murder if a Dem slps up. For example, a former vice president or his assistants got careless with a few important government documents compared to their own man who deliberately took hundreds of them home and tried his best to keep them as he believed they were his personal property. Not only that but a bunch of empty folders indicated several other highly classified documents were lost (or maybe hidden or even pre-sold for all we know.)
The current abuse at the Supreme Court will continue until Democrats take the appropriate actions to change the makeup of the court and pass legislation for term limits and accountability. The question is how much damage has to happen before these bare made.
Louis, I hope you don’t mind my replying, given your comment is not addressed to me. That noted, I write to clarify, that while you’re right about the House, regarding the Senate, 50 Senators willing to set aside the filibuster could move the legislation to the floor for debate and an up or down majority vote. Obviously, the more Senators Democrats can seat, the greater the likelihood of getting to 50 willing to agree to a filibuster rule change.
John, Presuming the likelihood Chief Justice Roberts won’t resign, I would suggest every one of us is obligated repeatedly to amplify that this Court’s existence, for some time, no longer seems subject to the credibility of its judgements. Hence, regardless of the extent to which the Court appears to have damaged its credibility, we ought not to expect the Chief Justice nor any other empowered body to hold what has become an increasingly imperial Court accountable. Accordingly, we all need to be far more vocal regarding the consequences of a Democratic Party reluctant to expand the Court should it once again be empowered to do so.
P.S. if Roberts were the Court institutionalist that he claims or aspires to be, he would resign, either quietly to avoid further embarrassment to the Court, or loudly, in an effort to restore dignity and credibility to the institution.
Stephen, To start, historically, I would note that by 1861 Congress had increased the number of Supreme Court justices to 9 to cover the additional circuit courts that by then had amounted to 9 due to the expansion of the American West. Today there are 13 circuit courts of appeals. Hence, precedent surely would serve, largely, to justify adding 4 justices to the High Court. (The same argument would apply to the lower courts.)
Additionally, as our Democratic representatives are becoming increasingly aware of the extent to which a minority has assumed power over the will of the majority, I sense the Party, overall, is growing increasingly more receptive to reforms in a host of areas, including the Court.
Hence, I would argue, presuming we hold the Presidency, that a majority in the House and, say, about 55 Senators (we would need only 50 to set aside the filibuster) could suffice. Indeed, we have nothing to lose by starting now to get as many progressives as possible seated in 2024. Many already are writing postcards to support Democrat State Senator Jennifer McClellan’s bid for Congress in Virginia’s February 21st Special Election.
I remain mystified as to why they didn't already do this when they had the chance. Not to mention why they even had the small surge in legislation they did have prior to the newly elected officials taking their seats. Why all the waiting in the first place? Ever greedy I suppose, but despite my approval of what the prior Congress and Senate accomplished, my real question has been "why not more"?
Yehawes, As for the 2 questions you raise, while the reply to the first is the more complex, said complications never were seriously contemplated because the Senate would have blocked any initiative to expand the Court.
As for why more was not accomplished while the Dems controlled both the House and Senate, the answer is quite straightforward—the filibuster. You might recall, that while Biden’s entire legislative agenda passed in the House, it was stalled in the Senate. You also might recall that Senate Democrats had to cram Biden’s entire agenda into one bill that only could be passed through the procedural maneuver known as reconciliation. The reason Dems had to legislate in this ridiculous way was because Senate Republicans (plus Manchin and Sinema) refused to allow regular order—moving bills to the floor for debate and an up or down majority vote.
Next, you might recall that the physical and human infrastructure pieces were separated and that, while the physical piece enjoyed bipartisan support, the human piece requiring only 50 Senate votes under reconciliation was voted down by Manchin and Sinema. Eventually, Senate Democrats got the two to agree to the vastly edited-down Inflation Reduction Act, with the VP casting the tie-breaking vote.
As for legislation that had passed in the House, but didn’t qualify under reconciliation, had Manchin and Sinema agreed to set aside the filibuster for passage of even some of those bills, the legislation could have advanced with 50 Senate votes with the VP, again, casting the tie breaking vote. Regrettably, Manchin and Sinema refused to consider any filibuster rule change.
I hope I have been helpful, particularly with your second question.
i've always marveled at how George W Bush gets a pass in so many ways: he doesn't speak out against the MAGA movement, he appointed Roberts and Alito who have proven to be terrible choices--let alone the lying that led to the Iraq War and so much suffering there. Yet he's treated by the media as an amiable and insignificant figure. I knew when he put forth Roberts that we were in real trouble, with his wife an anti-choice activist. "Reality is what we say it is," said "Bush's Brain," Karl Rove.
Lil’ Georgie got a free pass from the press when he refused to answer questions about his past abuse of drugs while running for Office! Likewise the gap in his so-called military service which was never investigated properly!
Amazing how those with whom he ‘partied’ were never discovered open remained loyal to him!
Robert, I am so heartened by your eloquent outrage about the Supreme Court and this investigation - you didn't even @#$%&!, which I imagine many of us faithful readers are doing.
As I understand it, the Marshal of the Court is an employee of the Court, and her bosses are the 9 Justices. An immense conflict of interest and psychology before the interviews even start. It would take an immensely courageous interviewer to ask always-angry, always-arrogant Sam Alito to sign an affidavit under oath. I imagine Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan would be quite pleasant to deal with.
We deceive ourselves when we think it's possible to control zealots, including few of our current Justices.
Yes, the Marshal was led by her nose by Roberts. Can’t trust him nor any of his court jesters and why should we? Women, in particular, must not tolerate any behavior coming from the court. They have besmirched their so-called honor.
Just a note re: the SCOTUS 'leak'. Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC Thursday night pointed out that the leak wasn't SCOTUS's worst event: the decision to overturn Roe v Wade was and that conversation is being blotted out by the so-called leak 'investigation'. O'Donnell also pointed out that Roberts suggested the leak was intended to be a protest but was a means to make the decision cast iron firm, which it turned out to be when finally announced.
Both are outrageous and deserve to be condemned. To be clear, the leak was an attempt by a conservative justice to prevent Roberts from peeling Kavanaugh away from the majority. That’s judicial corruption, plain and simple. I don’t know why condemning judicial corruption diminishes outrage over the opinion. I think O’Donnell is head and shoulders the best journalist in the media today. But I think he has presented a false dichotomy on this issue.
Condemning judicial corruption doesn't diminish outrage over the opinion, but I agree with O'Donnell that the horror of the decision itself is the worst of SCOTUS, and should always be emphasized, and Roberts' assigning 'protest' as the intent of the leaker(s) places blame on pro-Choice individuals as the leakers without a shred of evidence to back up that noxious conclusion. I thank you for your outstanding piece and above comment.
There was an update today on a story first run by Politico on December 20, 2022.
The article said "Longtime judicial activist Leonard Leo appears to have helped facilitate the sale of former White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway’s polling company in 2017 — as she was playing a key role in advocating [to Donald Trump] for Leo’s handpicked list of Supreme Court candidates, according to previously unreported financial documents reviewed by government ethics and finance experts."
Today's update said "The conservative judicial activist used BH Fund to facilitate the nominations of conservative judges, but it closed down just three days after POLITICO inquired about its role in the 2017 purchase of Kellyanne Conway’s business."
The article went on to say "“Nothing screams ‘efforts to conceal’ quite like folding up an organization just as you start getting questions about it,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded by a Republican former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission.
Currently, a Senate committee is reviewing a new complaint requesting an investigation into whether federal ethics rules or criminal laws were broken in Conway’s sale of her business, Senate aides confirmed."
Daily Kos reported today "This time, Leo and KellyAnne might just be caught up in something criminal. Watchdog group Campaign for Accountability has asked Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chair Gary Peters (D-MI) to investigate the sale conducted while Conway was serving as an executive branch employee. In that role, federal law barred her from participating “personally and substantially” in a matter before the government. Like a Supreme Court nomination."
I hope the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee plans to investigate this situation. I look forward to hearing what Senator Peters and his colleagues discover about the Conway-Leo dark money deal.
Chris Hayes did a segment on this KellyAnne Conway story. He is always on top of things and does consistently excellent work on his program "All In with Chris Hayes."
Accountable. US issued a press release Saturday, January 21, 2023 stating that Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Dick Durbin spoke out about the Kellyanne Conway-Leonard Leo story.
"News of the transaction caught the attention of congressional leaders like Democratic Whip, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chair of the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) – both of whom criticized the deal.
Whitehouse, a longtime advocate for government transparency, shared the story and quipped, “When you’re spending $580 million to pack and control the Supreme Court, what’s a few million in payola to White House officials.”
"Interest in the story extended beyond the halls of Capitol Hill. Outlets like the Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Esquire, and Salon covered the financial deal and the role it potentially played in Trump’s judicial decisions. High-profile journalists like Michael Barbaro, Ken Vogel, and Ian Millhiser also amplified the story on Twitter."
Eliminating dark money in our politics has been a major focus of Senator Whitehouse. I hope he and others use the opportunity of this recent story to bring even more attention to the subject.
I'm sure many people are well aware of "Citizen's United" and the terrible damage dark money is doing to this country. But the general population is probably not aware of Leonard Leo and his allies. This is a story that needs to be dragged out of the darkness so we can add it to the public discourse leading up to the 2024 election and beyond.
Let's upgrade Mr. Leo from a menace to our country who has been slinking in the shadows for decades, collecting millions and millions of dollars from pro-fascist rich men in order to slowly buy parts of American democracy that should not be for sale. We need to put a spotlight on his insidious, powerful crusade to cement permanent control of our country for rich white Christian men.
Kevin McCarthy's congressional circus of ridiculous clowns and evil bullies like Jordan, Gosart, Gaetz, Green, Bobart, Graham and George Santos/Anthony Devolder must not hog the spotlight from the equally slimy and evil presence of Leonard Leo.
The door has been opened a bit. I hope the media and Democrats do not let it close. It's time for Leonard Leo to join his equally fascist creations now headlining in the House Chamber so they can all take a bow together, in front of 330 million Americans, for their efforts to subvert our democracy.
Federal Election laws?? Are they real or a myth? Seems like every time a pool keeps violation is revealed by a published article, nothing ever comes of the matter!!
Let’s start with Stormy Daniels hush money paid by trump operative to keep her quiet during the 2016 campaign about his marital infidelity ( so many in his past, he cheated on each of his wives)!
The 3 liberal justices ought to sign an affidavit under oath that they did or leak the document (assuming they didn’t). That would put the six others on the spot.
When Jim Jordan begins his McCarthy-esque investigations, I would hope that each witness respond to each question as follows:
Thank you for that question, Senator. Before I respond, I would like to remind everyone that I am under oath, but you and other members of the Committee are not, and you are under no legal obligation to tell the truth or to base your questions on facts. And, I would remind everyone that members of the Committee have in the recent past, without consequence or accountability, refused to testify before a Congressional committee. And, as to the question, having been advised of my rights under the Constitution, I am respectfully declining to answer the question.
Compare this with Michael Flynn’s contemptuous “Fifth.” We all should be reminded that the Committee has not sworn to tell the truth or ask questions in good faith.
The Justices not signing the same affidavit as their employees reminds me that Gini Thomas did not testify under oath when she & her attorney met with The January 6th Committee.
1. "After the report, the strongest inference is that a justice was the source of the leak."
2. "Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe" Democrats are pragmatic, as you say. Republicans are ideologues.
Plus a third comment which will certainly fall on deaf ears: "John Roberts is not up to the task of saving the Court. If he had the best interests of the nation and the Court at heart, he would resign and allow Biden to appoint a strong leader who can rehabilitate and reform the Court."
Regarding the shallow investigation into the leaked draft of a SCOTUS decision, one of the reasons it was so poorly received is that this is 2023, not 1983 or 1963. We’ve all gotten lessons in investigations - good ones and bad - simply by following the news. We’re a much more informed, savvy, and skeptical audience than in years past. We get a daily lesson in democracy, civics, and the law from reading and listening to news. We’ve learned the lesson of George W. Bush from his own lips: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, uh, can’t get fooled again.” We rightly take few public pronouncements without at least a grain of salt. What is said may be sufficient for the credulous few - as with the report of the Marshal of the Court. The rest of us want to examine what was NOT said.
My favorite part : “If he had the best interests of the nation and the Court at heart, he [Roberts] would resign and allow Biden to appoint a strong leader who can rehabilitate and reform the Court.
Thank you for such a great breakdown of the Marshal’s ‘ruling.’ I appreciate your taking the time to cover that and other issues. I hope for a few joyous days for you and your family.
Thanks for the heads up about the new article about how Democrat presidents are better for American economy the last 40 years 😀 will definitely read it ASAP 👍 need to pass that info to Biden staffers and Jeffries staffers too 😀 Thanks again for keeping us in the loop on the cutting edge 😀
"I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the justices or their spouses." OR THEIR SPOUSES?!?!?!? Are you kidding me?!?!?!? The fact that the Marshal even mentioned "spouses" is - I dunno what it is. A red flag. Ludicrous. Gaslighting. Insulting. Stupid. Not up to the job. Toady. Then I continued reading your post and, of course, you sorta said the same thing only much more eloquently. 🤦♀️
Thank you for the link to Leonhardt's article. The comment that jumped out to me - "One possibility is that the two parties are both responding to the interest groups that support and finance them..." - is a good argument to enact Adam Schiff's repeated amendment to overturn Citizen's United and keep (dark) money out of politicians' pockets.
I had lunch today with a group of lawyers (at a professional association meeting); during the conversation prior to the program, there was discussion of the Supreme Court’s “leak” investigation. Everyone who spoke recognized it as lacking credibility, even with the so-called independent “blessing” of the Chernoff group. It was apparent to everyone at the table that the report, by implication, accused a justice/spouse of the leak. Logic certainly supports that inference too.
I agree with you that the chief justice should resign for the good of the Court as well as the country. So should the justice implicated in the report. The “cover up” effort does not pass the “smell test.”
Since I find it impossible to believe that Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan leaked the draft ruling, I wish they would abandon judicial decorum (previously abandoned by Mitch McConnell and the appointments of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett plus overruling Roe v. Wade) and sign the same affidavit the employees were required to sign. Then let's pass the popcorn and watch the fireworks among the remaining justices! :-))
An excellent suggestion!
Brilliant.
Andrew, While, on one level, I love your idea, for better or worse, I don’t imagine any justice breaking precedent by publicly appearing to disparage the bench.
Quite right Barbara. The putative liberals won't sign such a document because they don't want to put their colleagues and friends on the spot; those of the notional conservatives who aren't guilty won't sign because of their desire and perceived need to protect their guilty colleague and the guilty one won't sign because he/she doesn't want to spend time in prison for perjury. This is as good a case for an independent Prosecutor as I can imagine if there was a real desire to resolve the issue and restore some semblance of respect for the Court. I have real doubts about the existence of such desire.
Dave, In my view, identifying the leaker won’t resolve the corruption that has ensued from the hold the Federalist Society enjoys over the appointment of justices.
It won't be a complete resolution by any stretch, but it's at least a start. Most people don't even think there's a problem in the Court.
Dave, I prefer to see SCOTUS justices required to sign the same affidavit, under penalties of perjury, that staffers were required to sign.
Incredible and very plausible suggestion, AB. Your suggestion makes so much sense that I am(perhaps foolishly) hopeful It will be followed by Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan.
Love this idea!!
Sounds very plausible all things considered, John.
Also wondering o if anyone had seen the latest on Georgie boy? https://www.yahoo.com/news/investor-lost-625-000-faith-124058283.html
Oh, my! That article lays out the most damning details of securities fraud against Santos I have seen! Thanks!
I read that too, Robert. Oh, imagine Intrater getting “hooked” and swindled by Santos. Now and only now, is he blaming Georgie for his problems. This all stinks to high heaven!
I think you are right, Marlene. wondering if the cover up is to do with Russian money financing Santos? I read a while back he had made favorable comments about the Russians on Social media. His benefactor cousin is Russian. .
Exactly! For instance, I am opposed to capital punishment in all circumstances, but I might make exceptions for child molesters and people who abuse animals.
It might be more interesting to sentence whatever his name is to several years of cleaning cages at animal rescue centers. Since they are public places, there would always be someone around to document his activity and ensure he's doing the job properly.
It would make a great movie.
Off-topic: HCR recounts epic trolling by Bill Foster (D.IL), who is a nuclear scientist in real life: “As the only recipient of the Wilson Prize for High-Energy Particle Accelerator Physics serving in Congress, it can get lonely. Not anymore!... I’m thrilled to be joined on the Science Committee by my Republican colleague Dr. George Santos, winner of not only the Nobel Prize, but also the Fields Medal—the top prize in Mathematics—for his groundbreaking work with imaginary numbers.”
Scrolling down that tweet the last line was revealed and I really had one of the best laughs I've had in a long time. Of course, the whole list of "accomplishments" is clearly a commentary on Santos' lies, but when it's closed with the punch line, it's hysterically funny.
Yes, it seems maintaining a sense of humor helps.
Thank you for the research! At first, I disagreed with the assertions that the Democrats should have known about this imposters dirty laundry. Then I recall how the gop attacked HCR since the very day her husband, when he was first elected as President, announced she would lead a team to create a health care plan. Decades of efforts to smear her name. The misdeeds, lies, and crimes of Santos were out there to be covered yet only ONE local Long Island newspaper ran the story of the con man! I guess the Dems assumed he did’t have a chance! Hmmmm… come to think of it election night of 2016 most people believed the orange amoral creature didn’t have a chance!
I want to know what Dems are doing to ensure the replacement is a democrat. They'll have to have another election, right? So nibble nibble nibble we should be working to reduce the Republican majority and the entire force of the democrat population and political machinery should be focused on who is next in that district - finding an electable democrat and getting their name and True credentials out there.
Yes, for sure, Lou. They shouldn't take anything for granted in politics. The silence from the GOP is deafening when it comes to wrongdoing in their midst, but they scream bloody murder if a Dem slps up. For example, a former vice president or his assistants got careless with a few important government documents compared to their own man who deliberately took hundreds of them home and tried his best to keep them as he believed they were his personal property. Not only that but a bunch of empty folders indicated several other highly classified documents were lost (or maybe hidden or even pre-sold for all we know.)
The current abuse at the Supreme Court will continue until Democrats take the appropriate actions to change the makeup of the court and pass legislation for term limits and accountability. The question is how much damage has to happen before these bare made.
A fly in the ointment here! Dems need 60 Senators and control of the house!
Louis, I hope you don’t mind my replying, given your comment is not addressed to me. That noted, I write to clarify, that while you’re right about the House, regarding the Senate, 50 Senators willing to set aside the filibuster could move the legislation to the floor for debate and an up or down majority vote. Obviously, the more Senators Democrats can seat, the greater the likelihood of getting to 50 willing to agree to a filibuster rule change.
Thank you for the clarification of possible senate procedure.
Exactly!
John, Presuming the likelihood Chief Justice Roberts won’t resign, I would suggest every one of us is obligated repeatedly to amplify that this Court’s existence, for some time, no longer seems subject to the credibility of its judgements. Hence, regardless of the extent to which the Court appears to have damaged its credibility, we ought not to expect the Chief Justice nor any other empowered body to hold what has become an increasingly imperial Court accountable. Accordingly, we all need to be far more vocal regarding the consequences of a Democratic Party reluctant to expand the Court should it once again be empowered to do so.
P.S. if Roberts were the Court institutionalist that he claims or aspires to be, he would resign, either quietly to avoid further embarrassment to the Court, or loudly, in an effort to restore dignity and credibility to the institution.
John, While eloquently stated, regrettably, the requisite term is the conditional “if.”
The only way this happens is for the Democratic’s to have an overwhelming majority in both houses.
Stephen, To start, historically, I would note that by 1861 Congress had increased the number of Supreme Court justices to 9 to cover the additional circuit courts that by then had amounted to 9 due to the expansion of the American West. Today there are 13 circuit courts of appeals. Hence, precedent surely would serve, largely, to justify adding 4 justices to the High Court. (The same argument would apply to the lower courts.)
Additionally, as our Democratic representatives are becoming increasingly aware of the extent to which a minority has assumed power over the will of the majority, I sense the Party, overall, is growing increasingly more receptive to reforms in a host of areas, including the Court.
Hence, I would argue, presuming we hold the Presidency, that a majority in the House and, say, about 55 Senators (we would need only 50 to set aside the filibuster) could suffice. Indeed, we have nothing to lose by starting now to get as many progressives as possible seated in 2024. Many already are writing postcards to support Democrat State Senator Jennifer McClellan’s bid for Congress in Virginia’s February 21st Special Election.
Barbara thanks for the great insight.
Stephen, My pleasure, particularly since I’m often on the receiving end of your astute remarks.
I remain mystified as to why they didn't already do this when they had the chance. Not to mention why they even had the small surge in legislation they did have prior to the newly elected officials taking their seats. Why all the waiting in the first place? Ever greedy I suppose, but despite my approval of what the prior Congress and Senate accomplished, my real question has been "why not more"?
Yehawes, As for the 2 questions you raise, while the reply to the first is the more complex, said complications never were seriously contemplated because the Senate would have blocked any initiative to expand the Court.
As for why more was not accomplished while the Dems controlled both the House and Senate, the answer is quite straightforward—the filibuster. You might recall, that while Biden’s entire legislative agenda passed in the House, it was stalled in the Senate. You also might recall that Senate Democrats had to cram Biden’s entire agenda into one bill that only could be passed through the procedural maneuver known as reconciliation. The reason Dems had to legislate in this ridiculous way was because Senate Republicans (plus Manchin and Sinema) refused to allow regular order—moving bills to the floor for debate and an up or down majority vote.
Next, you might recall that the physical and human infrastructure pieces were separated and that, while the physical piece enjoyed bipartisan support, the human piece requiring only 50 Senate votes under reconciliation was voted down by Manchin and Sinema. Eventually, Senate Democrats got the two to agree to the vastly edited-down Inflation Reduction Act, with the VP casting the tie-breaking vote.
As for legislation that had passed in the House, but didn’t qualify under reconciliation, had Manchin and Sinema agreed to set aside the filibuster for passage of even some of those bills, the legislation could have advanced with 50 Senate votes with the VP, again, casting the tie breaking vote. Regrettably, Manchin and Sinema refused to consider any filibuster rule change.
I hope I have been helpful, particularly with your second question.
i've always marveled at how George W Bush gets a pass in so many ways: he doesn't speak out against the MAGA movement, he appointed Roberts and Alito who have proven to be terrible choices--let alone the lying that led to the Iraq War and so much suffering there. Yet he's treated by the media as an amiable and insignificant figure. I knew when he put forth Roberts that we were in real trouble, with his wife an anti-choice activist. "Reality is what we say it is," said "Bush's Brain," Karl Rove.
Excellent points!
Lil’ Georgie got a free pass from the press when he refused to answer questions about his past abuse of drugs while running for Office! Likewise the gap in his so-called military service which was never investigated properly!
Amazing how those with whom he ‘partied’ were never discovered open remained loyal to him!
Robert, I am so heartened by your eloquent outrage about the Supreme Court and this investigation - you didn't even @#$%&!, which I imagine many of us faithful readers are doing.
As I understand it, the Marshal of the Court is an employee of the Court, and her bosses are the 9 Justices. An immense conflict of interest and psychology before the interviews even start. It would take an immensely courageous interviewer to ask always-angry, always-arrogant Sam Alito to sign an affidavit under oath. I imagine Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan would be quite pleasant to deal with.
We deceive ourselves when we think it's possible to control zealots, including few of our current Justices.
Correction: My last sentence should end: "including a few of our current Justices."
Yes, the Marshal was led by her nose by Roberts. Can’t trust him nor any of his court jesters and why should we? Women, in particular, must not tolerate any behavior coming from the court. They have besmirched their so-called honor.
Laurie, you can edit your posts by clicking on the three dots to the right of Reply Collapse.
Or “the majority of the current justices.”🤷♀️
Just a note re: the SCOTUS 'leak'. Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC Thursday night pointed out that the leak wasn't SCOTUS's worst event: the decision to overturn Roe v Wade was and that conversation is being blotted out by the so-called leak 'investigation'. O'Donnell also pointed out that Roberts suggested the leak was intended to be a protest but was a means to make the decision cast iron firm, which it turned out to be when finally announced.
Both are outrageous and deserve to be condemned. To be clear, the leak was an attempt by a conservative justice to prevent Roberts from peeling Kavanaugh away from the majority. That’s judicial corruption, plain and simple. I don’t know why condemning judicial corruption diminishes outrage over the opinion. I think O’Donnell is head and shoulders the best journalist in the media today. But I think he has presented a false dichotomy on this issue.
Condemning judicial corruption doesn't diminish outrage over the opinion, but I agree with O'Donnell that the horror of the decision itself is the worst of SCOTUS, and should always be emphasized, and Roberts' assigning 'protest' as the intent of the leaker(s) places blame on pro-Choice individuals as the leakers without a shred of evidence to back up that noxious conclusion. I thank you for your outstanding piece and above comment.
There was an update today on a story first run by Politico on December 20, 2022.
The article said "Longtime judicial activist Leonard Leo appears to have helped facilitate the sale of former White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway’s polling company in 2017 — as she was playing a key role in advocating [to Donald Trump] for Leo’s handpicked list of Supreme Court candidates, according to previously unreported financial documents reviewed by government ethics and finance experts."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/20/trump-conway-leonard-leo-00074690
Today's update said "The conservative judicial activist used BH Fund to facilitate the nominations of conservative judges, but it closed down just three days after POLITICO inquired about its role in the 2017 purchase of Kellyanne Conway’s business."
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/20/dark-money-leonard-leo-00078657
The article went on to say "“Nothing screams ‘efforts to conceal’ quite like folding up an organization just as you start getting questions about it,” said Saurav Ghosh, director of federal campaign finance reform for the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan nonprofit founded by a Republican former commissioner of the Federal Election Commission.
Currently, a Senate committee is reviewing a new complaint requesting an investigation into whether federal ethics rules or criminal laws were broken in Conway’s sale of her business, Senate aides confirmed."
Daily Kos reported today "This time, Leo and KellyAnne might just be caught up in something criminal. Watchdog group Campaign for Accountability has asked Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chair Gary Peters (D-MI) to investigate the sale conducted while Conway was serving as an executive branch employee. In that role, federal law barred her from participating “personally and substantially” in a matter before the government. Like a Supreme Court nomination."
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/20/2148331/-Dark-money-fountain-Leonard-Leo-under-scrutiny-for-possibly-helping-KellyAnne-Conway-break-the-law
I hope the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee plans to investigate this situation. I look forward to hearing what Senator Peters and his colleagues discover about the Conway-Leo dark money deal.
Chris Hayes did a segment on this KellyAnne Conway story. He is always on top of things and does consistently excellent work on his program "All In with Chris Hayes."
Accountable. US issued a press release Saturday, January 21, 2023 stating that Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Dick Durbin spoke out about the Kellyanne Conway-Leonard Leo story.
"News of the transaction caught the attention of congressional leaders like Democratic Whip, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Chair of the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) – both of whom criticized the deal.
Whitehouse, a longtime advocate for government transparency, shared the story and quipped, “When you’re spending $580 million to pack and control the Supreme Court, what’s a few million in payola to White House officials.”
"Interest in the story extended beyond the halls of Capitol Hill. Outlets like the Washington Post, Vanity Fair, Esquire, and Salon covered the financial deal and the role it potentially played in Trump’s judicial decisions. High-profile journalists like Michael Barbaro, Ken Vogel, and Ian Millhiser also amplified the story on Twitter."
Eliminating dark money in our politics has been a major focus of Senator Whitehouse. I hope he and others use the opportunity of this recent story to bring even more attention to the subject.
I'm sure many people are well aware of "Citizen's United" and the terrible damage dark money is doing to this country. But the general population is probably not aware of Leonard Leo and his allies. This is a story that needs to be dragged out of the darkness so we can add it to the public discourse leading up to the 2024 election and beyond.
Let's upgrade Mr. Leo from a menace to our country who has been slinking in the shadows for decades, collecting millions and millions of dollars from pro-fascist rich men in order to slowly buy parts of American democracy that should not be for sale. We need to put a spotlight on his insidious, powerful crusade to cement permanent control of our country for rich white Christian men.
Kevin McCarthy's congressional circus of ridiculous clowns and evil bullies like Jordan, Gosart, Gaetz, Green, Bobart, Graham and George Santos/Anthony Devolder must not hog the spotlight from the equally slimy and evil presence of Leonard Leo.
The door has been opened a bit. I hope the media and Democrats do not let it close. It's time for Leonard Leo to join his equally fascist creations now headlining in the House Chamber so they can all take a bow together, in front of 330 million Americans, for their efforts to subvert our democracy.
https://accountable.us/icymi-politico-report-on-leonard-leo-and-kellyanne-conways-shady-deal-draws-criticism-from-lawmakers-and-widespread-media-attention/
Federal Election laws?? Are they real or a myth? Seems like every time a pool keeps violation is revealed by a published article, nothing ever comes of the matter!!
Let’s start with Stormy Daniels hush money paid by trump operative to keep her quiet during the 2016 campaign about his marital infidelity ( so many in his past, he cheated on each of his wives)!
Federal Election laws exist only in The Cloud!
The 3 liberal justices ought to sign an affidavit under oath that they did or leak the document (assuming they didn’t). That would put the six others on the spot.
Correction: that they did NOT leak the document
Jon, you can edit your own posts by clicking on the three dots after Reply Collapse.
My 3 dots after Reply Collapse only offer 'Report Comment'. How do I get the edit choice?
The edit feature is available only for your own posts or comments.
Love this!
When Jim Jordan begins his McCarthy-esque investigations, I would hope that each witness respond to each question as follows:
Thank you for that question, Senator. Before I respond, I would like to remind everyone that I am under oath, but you and other members of the Committee are not, and you are under no legal obligation to tell the truth or to base your questions on facts. And, I would remind everyone that members of the Committee have in the recent past, without consequence or accountability, refused to testify before a Congressional committee. And, as to the question, having been advised of my rights under the Constitution, I am respectfully declining to answer the question.
Compare this with Michael Flynn’s contemptuous “Fifth.” We all should be reminded that the Committee has not sworn to tell the truth or ask questions in good faith.
The Justices not signing the same affidavit as their employees reminds me that Gini Thomas did not testify under oath when she & her attorney met with The January 6th Committee.
Two comments worth enshrining somewhere:
1. "After the report, the strongest inference is that a justice was the source of the leak."
2. "Democrats have been more willing to heed economic and historical lessons about what policies actually strengthen the economy, while Republicans have often clung to theories that they want to believe" Democrats are pragmatic, as you say. Republicans are ideologues.
Plus a third comment which will certainly fall on deaf ears: "John Roberts is not up to the task of saving the Court. If he had the best interests of the nation and the Court at heart, he would resign and allow Biden to appoint a strong leader who can rehabilitate and reform the Court."
Regarding the shallow investigation into the leaked draft of a SCOTUS decision, one of the reasons it was so poorly received is that this is 2023, not 1983 or 1963. We’ve all gotten lessons in investigations - good ones and bad - simply by following the news. We’re a much more informed, savvy, and skeptical audience than in years past. We get a daily lesson in democracy, civics, and the law from reading and listening to news. We’ve learned the lesson of George W. Bush from his own lips: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, uh, can’t get fooled again.” We rightly take few public pronouncements without at least a grain of salt. What is said may be sufficient for the credulous few - as with the report of the Marshal of the Court. The rest of us want to examine what was NOT said.
Terrific analysis as always.
My favorite part : “If he had the best interests of the nation and the Court at heart, he [Roberts] would resign and allow Biden to appoint a strong leader who can rehabilitate and reform the Court.
Sigh… if only.
When you have one rotten apple in the barrel (Trump) pretty soon they all become rotten.
Thank you for such a great breakdown of the Marshal’s ‘ruling.’ I appreciate your taking the time to cover that and other issues. I hope for a few joyous days for you and your family.
….i spoke to Putin, and we engaged in an iterative process in which I asked questions and he answered mine…..
TFG on speaking to Putin at the Helsinki summit regarding Russian interference in the 2016 election.
✅
Thanks for the heads up about the new article about how Democrat presidents are better for American economy the last 40 years 😀 will definitely read it ASAP 👍 need to pass that info to Biden staffers and Jeffries staffers too 😀 Thanks again for keeping us in the loop on the cutting edge 😀
"I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the justices or their spouses." OR THEIR SPOUSES?!?!?!? Are you kidding me?!?!?!? The fact that the Marshal even mentioned "spouses" is - I dunno what it is. A red flag. Ludicrous. Gaslighting. Insulting. Stupid. Not up to the job. Toady. Then I continued reading your post and, of course, you sorta said the same thing only much more eloquently. 🤦♀️
Thank you for the link to Leonhardt's article. The comment that jumped out to me - "One possibility is that the two parties are both responding to the interest groups that support and finance them..." - is a good argument to enact Adam Schiff's repeated amendment to overturn Citizen's United and keep (dark) money out of politicians' pockets.