NEW: Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Johnson respond to yesterday's Supreme Court counsel's letter defendi

[In It to Win It]

Steven Mazie
@stevenmazie

NEW: Sen. Whitehouse and Rep. Johnson respond to yesterday’s Supreme Court counsel‘s letter defending Justice Alito

Link to tweet

[malaise]

1. Get thee to the greatest page

RFN!

[lark]

2. SCOTUS 5 acknowledge no law that disagrees with their Christofascism.

[MayReasonRule]

20. SCROTUS

"Because my closely held beliefs (grabs crotch closely) discern supremely."

Y'all Qaeda Nat-C Fascists through and through comprise the sitting majority of SCOTUS and the entirety of the GOP.

May reason rule.

[Ninga]

3. I love this. Kick it. But to what benefit?

[emulatorloo]

5. See post 4 below yours.

We just have to get the word out that SCOTUS and their lawyer are stonewalling and hiding something given the way things are now. Keep calling them out and try them in the court of public opinion.

Then win big in 2024 and pass some legislation.

[Buckeyeblue]

4. Sadly the best course of action is to call them out publicly

There are no other means to hold the SC accountable. Sure, you could impeach but that's almost a waste of time. If the Senate isn't willing to convict a president who tried to overthrow the government, I can imagine what anyone would have to do to get impeached.

[FBaggins]

12. That's what they're doing

Whitehouse knew that it wouldn't go any farther than what is implied in the court's response.

If this were a criminal proceeding, what they're doing is essentially an "offer of proof"... and it wouldn't go any farther because it's essentially triple (quadruple?) hearsay.

[soldierant]

38. It's very late in the 117th Congress to start an investigation

Possibly it could be done in the 118th in the Senate only. If they found evidence that bhavior has crossed over from just corruption ro concretely criminal, they could make a criminal referrl to the Department of Justice. However, even if DOJ could convict and imprison one or more, that would not remove them from office - unless, of course, the criminal behavior ame under the purview of the 14th Amendment.

In other words, it woule be a real long shot. It might be worth attempting on Thomas. I doubt direct involvement to seditious conspiracy could be tied to any of the others. Perjury is more their speed.

[Buckeyeblue]

41. A criminal investigation and trial would take years with all of the appeals

[soldierant]

44. I'm reminded of an old story about a person who had

given up dreams of college to support family, and finally, as an empty nester, decided to look into it again. They told a friend, "If I start now, then when I graduate, I'll be 60." The friend replied, "And how old will you be in four years if you don't start?"

An investigative committe in Congress has generally at most two years before it's a different Congress, but also can, at most, make a criminal referral. The DOJ has all the time in the world, even though the personnel may change.

I agree it would be a gamble. I'm not in a position to decide (or even to discuss with anyone who might be in a position to decide) whether it would be a gamble worth trying. I may be wrong, but I'm guessing you aren't either. Speculation, however, is free.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. We do not have a Supreme Court; we have an Extreme Court.

[MurrayDelph]

16. Or is it

a Supremacist Court?

[CrispyQ]

7. Google "Sheldon Whitehouse scheme speeches"

There are a series of speeches Whitehouse made in the senate where he explains & argues against big money in politics & in picking judicial nominees.

‘THE SCHEME’: A SENATOR’S PLAN TO HIGHLIGHT RIGHTWING INFLUENCE ON THE SUPREME COURT

https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/in-the-news/the-scheme-a-senators-plan-to-highlight-rightwing-influence-on-the-supreme-court

snip...


“The Scheme” is a series about the plot by rightwing donor interests to capture the supreme court and achieve through the institution’s power what they cannot through other branches of government.

For each speech Whitehouse, whose desk is on the back row, rises to his feet beside a mounted sign with the words “The scheme” superimposed on an image of the court’s exterior. He expounds on the decades-long roots of the masterplan, how it was watered by “dark money” and how it bore full fruit when President Donald Trump installed a six-justice rightwing majority on the court.

In an interview with the Guardian, Whitehouse, 66, explains why he has no faith in Trump’s three appointees – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – and acknowledges the embarrassment that Democrats were “sleeping sentries” as the threat unfolded.

But first, does it bother him that he is not playing to a full house, perhaps shouting into the void? “One gets used to it in the Senate,” he says phlegmatically, sitting in a meeting room at his Capitol Hill office adorned with framed photos of lighthouses and starry skies from Rhode Island, the tiny state that he represents.

Whitehouse is one of our best!

[emulatorloo]

8. Thanks for the link. Whitehouse is amazing.

[skamaria]

19. He's not in the least amazing!

He's trying to shed the trump stank not realizing it's permanent! He was at the forefront pushing gorsuch, barrett, and, I like beer boy!

[dpibel]

21. You are confused

I don't know who you're thinking of, but it's not Sheldon Whitehouse.

See, e.g.,

Whitehouse's grilling of Kavanaugh was the source of "I like beer!"

[skamaria]

31. Visualize egg on my face!

[CrispyQ]

30. You have him confused with someone else.

He's a stellar democrat & voted no on all three of those noms.

[skamaria]

32. Mea Culpa!

[calimary]

25. "Sleeping sentries". DAYUM.

We need Democrats who are wide awake and on guard, ALL THE TIME!

You may NOT kick back, think you’ve fixed it or you’ve done as much as you can, and relax or roll over and go back to sleep cuz you won or something.

The bad guys never do that. They never give up. They never kick back. They never rest on their laurels and breathe easy cuz they won or something. They’re ALWAYS on the alert. They’re ALWAYS suited up for battle. They’re ALWAYS looking for weakness (or laziness or worst of all, complacency) in the opposition.

And since that’s what they do, that’s what we HAVE TO do.

[UTUSN]

9. K&R

[DallasNE]

10. That Is Blistering

But will it change anything substantive? They know that come January 3rd the game changes. That is like running out a clock that reads 11:58.

[Marthe48]

11. Another flaw in Founding Fathers' logic

They thought all people going to serve on the s.c. would be honorable and like Caesar's wife, above reproach.

Too bad people with evil intentions advanced the careers of evil judges at the expense of honor and impartial justice.

[JudyM]

35. Exactly this.

[Haru]

13. So True

The Supreme Court should be an example of good and ethical conduct. It's time to address this undemocratic part of our government. No more lifetime appointments..

[calimary]

26. THIS! No more lifetime appointments!!!

No more!!!!

NONE!!!

If we do or change nothing else, we need to fix THAT one.

[Celerity]

39. It would require a Constitutional Amendment, so no chance.

[momta]

14. Whitehouse is excellent.

I have two Dem Senators. I wish they would do stuff like this.

[ShazzieB]

33. A lot depends on what committees they're on.

Whitehouse is on the Judiciary Committee, which runs the SCOTUS confirmation hearings. That gives him a lot of opportunities to do stuff like this. And he certainly did a great job grilling Judge Beerboy!

[TigressDem]

15. K&R K& R K&R K&R K& R K&R K&R K& R K&R

[crickets]

17. I'd rec 1000 times if I could. Thank you, Sen Whitehouse & Rep Johnson. nt

[republianmushroom]

18. Hell, don't expect any truthful answers from the supreme court. Then you will not be disappointed.

[TygrBright]

22. They are running a very crucial playbook.

Leadership in the Executive and Legislative branches (those who will participate, mostly Democrats) do not have a clear, Constitutionally-directed path for dealing with a rogue Judicial branch. That means each time this happens (and it has happened before, but not recently) and the Judicial branch needs some kind of reform, they have to run a very specific playbook that accomplishes these goals:

1. Makes the extent of the problem very clear throughout the other branches of government, creating broad awareness within the Legislative and Executive branches of the need for change.

2. Highlights the 'rogue' nature of the Court's actions to the rest of the Judiciary, building awareness of the problem and the need for change there.

3. Shines a bright light on the Court's 'rogue' nature to the public, building a groundswell of support for action.

The next step will be even more difficult - building consensus in the other branches for a particular action to change the Court, running the Constitutionality and legality of that action through many Judiciary filters to make it as 'fireproof' as possible, and building public support for that particular action.

Only then will they be able to act with any real hope of effecting change.

This is the playbook they're running, and very carefully.

I wish it could go faster, but it can't. Evolving broad swathes of key stakeholder perceptions and particularly building public support are extremely difficult and perilous processes in today's environment.

wearily,
Bright

[gratuitous]

23. They're trying to prepare new ground

For over 200 years, the Supreme Court has been a law to itself. Only in the last 25 years or so has it become a problem, as demagoguery has replaced jurisprudence. The rule of law and precedent have been reduced to a bagatelle, supplanted by ideological concerns that reverse-engineer the desired outcome regardless of law, custom, practice, and precedent.

Reform of the judiciary is due and overdue. Breaking with the traditions of 200 years is difficult, and won't be accomplished overnight. Whitehouse and Johnson are preparing the way, pointing out the need for judicial reform and groping toward an acceptable program of review and oversight of the actions and habits of Supreme Court Justices. The Court will squawk mightily about being reined in, but they have only themselves and their naked partisanship to blame. These are the first wobbly steps on the path to independent accountability for the Supreme Court.

[Initech]

24. What else happened in the last 25 years? Oh yeah Fox News.

Fox stole the Supreme Court and two elections (2000 and 2016) from us and further divided the population more times than a one-celled organism. Now they have six lifetime appointments to do the every evil bidding of the Murdoch family. They are a clear and present danger to this country. We can take SCOTUS back, if we wrestle control of it away from Fox first.

[Bucky]

27. "Procedure is the bone structure of justice"

Damn. That's getting used in my class

[oldsoftie]

28. Off topic, can SOMEONE with a legal mind explain the Raland Brunson case??

This guy has filed a case about the 2020 election being invalid because Congress didnt investigate "voter fraud claims" after the election. As far as I can tell, the Court accepted this case.
Is there a legal mind among us who can read and interpret this BS & explain why the SCOTUS wouldnt just let the lower court dismissals stand?
22-380 is the case

[msfiddlestix]

29. knr 💯👍☎⁉

[LetMyPeopleVote]

34. The response from the counsel for the SCOTUS was a non-response response

Ignoring the issues raised will not make these issues go away

[Blue Owl]

36. Nemo Judex In Sua Causa

Alito and Long Dong Silver need to learn the meaning of this phrase…..

[NullTuples]

37. McConnell: I can't believe it took them this long to figure this out...

[raging moderate]

40. What is this Rep. Johnson's first name? Is this Ron Johnson?

Last edited Wed Nov 30, 2022, 11:18 AM - Edit history (1)

I have tried to find out which one this is, but I cannot seem to do it.

[In It to Win It]

42. Hank Johnson of Georgia

[raging moderate]

43. Oh, thank you! Hank Johnson!

Hank Johnson of Georgia! I will remember this name!