Supreme Disappointment

The Supreme Court, as per usual, has saved the biggest cases for last, with a big stack  remaining—too many of which are about whether President Donald Trump can continue dismantling democracy.

I won't bother to talk about the immigration cases.  It's quite certain that the conservative cabal will let convicted felon Donald Trump do whatever he wants to brown and black people-- cause of course, there's no more racism, right?

We’ve got Trump v. Cook, about whether Trump was allowed to fire Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board based on ginned-up mortgage fraud allegations from the egregiously bad Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte.   Trump said he fired Cook “for cause” based on these unproven, uncharged allegations and that his decision can’t possibly be challenged.  Following oral argument, it looks like Cook has the votes to stop Trump from firing her. But even if she wins, it comes at a huge cost—literally; she’s spent more than $1 million fighting this.

Here’s where things get a bit squirrelly. While simultaneously signaling that they’ll block Trump from removing people from the Fed, the court is also still sitting on Trump v. Slaughter, where he removed Rebecca Slaughter from the Federal Trade Commission.  Sure, there’s a direct precedent that is nearly 100 years old, Humphrey’s Executor, which says that the president can’t fire an FTC commissioner without cause. But this is not a court that’s interested in following their own cases.

The Supreme Court conservatives have been playing a little shadow docket game here, letting Trump fire whoever he wants without directly saying they’re overruling Humphrey’s, but it’s looking pretty likely that they will rule in favor of Trump here.  So we’re looking at the court possibly carving out a special exception to bar Trump from firing Fed board members—because conservatives love their 401(k)s and don’t love financial chaos—but to let him fire anyone else from any other agency as he pleases.

Does this make sense? Nope. Will the conservative majority care? Nope.

The most critical remaining case is Trump v. Barbara, the birthright citizenship case where Trump showed up to vaguely glower at the judges during oral argument and has been openly threatening the justices, demanding that they rule in his favor.  From oral argument, it doesn’t look like he has the votes, but mostly it’s just shameful that the case even exists—a product wholly of Trump’s xenophobic malice propped up by MAGA law professors who somehow “discovered” that the 14th Amendment doesn’t say what it says.  If and when Trump loses this one, he’s going to lose his mind worse than he did when his idiotic tariffs got shut down.

And finally, it wouldn’t be a Supreme Court term without an anti-trans case that looks to succeed—enshrining even more of Trump’s bigotry into law.  Earlier this term, the court ruled that Colorado’s conversion therapy ban was likely unconstitutional, leaving LGBTQ+ children at the mercy of Christian “therapists” who “help” them by forcing them to be straight. It also upheld Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care—but only for trans kids.  This time around, it’s about banning trans kids from participating in sports. West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox are combined cases challenging state bans on trans athletes. And from oral argument, it looks bad. 

While we don’t know the outcomes yet, we do know one thing for sure: Whenever Trump and his ilk win, the rest of us lose. 

 

The Legacy of John Roberts

Supreme Denial

 

Justice in the Trump Era

Keeping DC Safe From Subway Sandwiches

Federal prosecutors have been unable to persuade a grand jury to approve a felony indictment against a man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent on the streets of Washington this month.

The grand jury’s rejection of the felony charge was a remarkable failure by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington and the second time in recent days that a majority of grand jurors refused to vote to indict a person accused of felony assault on a federal agent. It also amounted to a sharp rebuke by a panel of ordinary citizens against the prosecutors assigned to bring charges against people arrested after President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops and federal agents to fight crime and patrol the city’s streets.

Supreme Court Justice Expresses Dismay When Faced with the Results of His Own Ruling

Without any hint of irony,  Chief Justice John Roberts has described the rule of law as “endangered” and warned against “trashing the justices,” but in a public speech, he didn’t point fingers directly at President Donald Trump or his allies for publicly excoriating judges who’ve ruled against aspects of Trump’s agenda.

“The notion that rule of law governs is the basic proposition,” Roberts said during an appearance at Georgetown Law. “Certainly as a matter of theory, but also as a matter of practice, we need to stop and reflect every now and then how rare that is, certainly rare throughout history, and rare in the world today.”

As many legal experts express grave concern about Trump’s attacks on law firms and with several federal judges advancing inquiries into whether the administration is refusing to comply with court orders, Roberts took a longer-term view Monday. He blamed schools for shortchanging civics education and leaving students with little understanding of the structure of U.S. government or the role of the courts.

“That’s really too bad,” the chief justice told graduating students at the law school. “We’re developing a situation where a whole group of young people is growing up having no real sense about how our system of justice works.”

Yet, just last summer Roberts authored a consequential and controversial court decision that gave convicted felon Donald Trump substantial immunity from prosecution on charges of election subversion and mishandling of classified documents.  Neither of those acts were conducted as part of his official duties, but Roberts gave Trump a "hall pass" anyway-- and now he is shocked at how Trump's second term is unfolding.  This is your legacy, John Roberts-- shut up and sit down.

Where's the Justice?

Supreme Court Seems Complicit in Denying Trans Youth Their Right to Make Health Care Decisions

The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding a current Tennessee law banning gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth—and witnessed history.  Chase Strangio, a staff attorney for the ACLU, defended the transgender community and became the first openly trans lawyer to make an argument before the highest court in the land.

Conservative lawmakers defended the legislation by arguing that transgender youth could ultimately regret using puberty blockers or seeking other gender-affirming care.  However, as the Associated Press reported in 2023, the number of transgender people who detransition—or regret switching genders and revert back to their gender assigned at birth—is minuscule. 

Conservative justices tried to frame the case as one of "states rights", but that type of rubbish has been around for over a century-- famously used to justify slavery during the Civil War.  As was the case back then, conservatives today wave the banner of "states rights" to give GOP-controlled states the power to violate basic human rights.  Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar pointed out that allowing Tennessee to impose a ban on gender-affirming medication could potentially lead to a “nationwide ban.”

The case, United States v. Skrmetti, will ultimately determine just how much states can meddle in the medical affairs of transgender youth and, potentially, all Americans.  Transgender rights have been at the forefront of public discourse lately, with Donald Trump and many Republicans lambasting the issue during their 2024 campaigns. 

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, argues that the push for gender-affirming care is more important than ever as a growing number of states impose laws on decisions typically made between a minor, their family, and their health care provider. In 2023 alone, 19 states passed laws to stop gender-affirming care for people under 18, according to CNN.  “Rather than protecting kids, these laws are preventing parents and young people from making informed medical decisions, and doctors and health care providers from providing best-practice care to their patients,” the organization argued. 

Indeed, the Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Population Affairs found that this type of medical care for transgender minors—which has rarely included gender-affirming surgeries—is “crucial” to the “overall health and well-being” of these children. The department also notes that transgender youths “face significant health disparities” compared to cisgender people, or people who identify with their gender assigned at birth. 

Part of this disparity in health care access contributes to the striking number of LGBTQ+ youth who “seriously considered attempting suicide” in 2021, a national survey reports. Advocates for transgender care fear that upholding the medical ban in Tennessee will exacerbate the mental health crisis for trans youth.

 

Trumper Judge Found to Have Violated Ethics Rules

 Well, well well.  It looks as if Trumper judge Aileen Cannon is a serial offender of ethics rules. ProPublica is reporting that Aileen Mercedes Cannon repeatedly failed to disclose her attendance at right-wing junkets.

Cannon went to an event in Arlington, Va. honoring the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, according to documents obtained from the Law and Economics Center at George Mason University. At a lecture and private dinner, she sat among members of Scalia’s family, fellow Federalist Society members and more than 30 conservative federal judges. Organizers billed the event as “an excellent opportunity to connect with judicial colleagues.”

A 2006 rule, intended to shine a light on judges’ attendance at paid seminars that could pose conflicts or influence decisions, requires them to file disclosure forms for such trips within 30 days and make them public on the court’s website.

It’s not the first time she has failed to fully comply with the rule.  In 2021 and 2022, Cannon took weeklong trips to the luxurious Sage Lodge in Pray, Montana, for legal colloquiums sponsored by George Mason, which named its law school for Scalia thanks to $30 million in gifts that conservative judicial kingmaker Leonard Leo helped organize.

Cannon’s failure to disclose invitations to expensive educational events hosted by prominent conservative groups is particularly concerning given her short tenure as her judge and her role in one of the most prominent criminal cases in the country. 

In July, Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against Trump, ruling that the appointment of Special Counsel Jack Smith was unconstitutional. The decision, which was appealed by the Justice Department, put a spotlight on past rulings by Cannon seen as overly favorable to the former president. 

In 2022, Cannon was sharply rebuked by the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals after granting the former president a request for a “special master” to review troves of classified documents seized during the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago. The court of appeals wrote that the unprecedented nature of Trump’s case did not give “the judiciary license to interfere in an ongoing investigation.” 

 

Supreme Court's Ruling Against Affirmative Action Gets the Intended Result

University of North Carolina recently released a profile of incoming freshman and transfer students that shows in the year since the Supreme Court gutted affirmative action in college admissions, the number of Black students admitted to the university dropped from 10.5% to 7.8% – an incredible drop of around 25%.

Harvard University also experienced a similar drop in Black enrollment, according to data released this week which shows a 22% decrease in Black freshmen when compared to the year before. Both schools were named as plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case in which activist conservative judges ruled against the long-held practice of considering race and ethnicity in college admissions.

“I chose this school because I saw the robust amount of diversity that was here and the results of it as well,” said Samantha Greene, president of the Black Student Movement at UNC. “So, to see that kind of go a little bit down the gutter definitely has me thinking about my choice to be here.”

As admissions offices across the country release their latest racial demographics, a murky portrait is beginning to emerge of the Class of 2028 – one that’s left some experts warning about the long-term effects of a lack of diversity on campus. 

At Yale University, the percentage of Black students admitted this year held steady at 14% when compared to those who started last fall, but the number of Asian students fell by 20% compared to last year.  

At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the number of Black students admitted to the Class of 2028 utterly collapsed-- falling from 15% last fall to just 5% this year (a whopping 67% decrease), while Latino students saw a 31% decrease.  In an interview with the university’s news outlet last month, Stu Schmill, MIT’s dean of admissions, said the change in demographics reflects the negative impact of the Supreme Court’s widely discredited ruling.

Last year's freshman class had the “highest proportion of students from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds in MIT history,” Schmill said, and the university used race as a factor in identifying “well-prepared students who emerged from the unequal K-12 educational environment.”  But after the shameful Supreme Court ruling, Schmill said he has “no doubt that we left out many well-qualified, well-matched applicants from historically under-represented backgrounds who in the past we would have admitted — and who would have excelled.” 

History shows ending affirmative action can have long-term economic repercussions for students of color. Backlash to affirmative action policies reached a fever pitch in the 1990s, leading several states, including Texas, Washington, Florida and California, to enact bans on race-conscious admissions policies.

Zachary Bleemer, an economics professor at Princeton University who studies the impact of affirmative action bans, said the bans passed in the 1990s – similar to today – had an immediate negative effect on the diversity of the student body.  When California ended affirmative action in 1998, what “you saw was this immediate decline between 40 and 50% of Black and Hispanic enrollment at Berkeley and UCLA, the two most selective schools in the state,” Bleemer said.  For Black and Hispanic students, losing access to California’s most selective colleges and universities also had long-term economic consequences.  “If you follow [Black and Hispanic students] forward to the labor market, you see meaningful decline from the order of 5 or 6% of wages that disappear because they end up going to a less selective school instead.” 

 

Cannon is Part of Trump's Arsenal

Eileen Cannon Dismisses Case Again Trump, Making Her Incompetence Clear

U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon dismissed the prosecution in Donald Trump’s classified documents case. The convicted felon faced more than three dozen federal charges of mishandling classified documents. This is widely seen as a "quid pro quo" by Cannon, who was appointed to the federal position in the Southern District of Florida by Trump in 2020.

Even before charges were filed against Trump, Cannon was making headlines regarding federal prosecutors’ investigation of documents found at Mar-a-Lago during an FBI raid in August 2022. Cannon was judge-shopped by Trump’s legal team, and assigned to Trump's appeal against the investigation. Her first move was to assist Trump's legal team in cleaning up its somewhat convoluted appeal.

Cannon then sided with Trump’s defense and appointed a "special master"—a third party who looks things over to determine if there’s attorney-client privilege or other issues—to review the documents seized by the FBI. The move temporarily barred agents and prosecutors from reviewing them. According to Slate, it marked the first time a judge had stopped an investigation before an indictment. 

Paul Rosenzweig, a Department of Homeland Security official under former President George W. Bush, called Cannon’s intervention “a special law just for Donald Trump by a Trump appointee, and it is unmoored from precedent, insupportable in law, will not be approved of by anybody who isn’t a Trump fanatic.”

When Judge Raymond J. Dearie, the special master whom Cannon had appointed, tried to do his job by ordering that Trump’s lawyers assert the validity of the documents seized, Cannon overruled him. She also overruled Dearie’s attempt at creating a reasonable timeline to proceed in.

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Cannon's ruling, saying, "The law is clear, we cannot write a rule that allows any subject of a search warrant to block government investigations after the execution of the warrant. Nor can we write a rule that allows only former presidents to do so. Either approach would be a radical reordering of our case law limiting the federal courts’ involvement in criminal investigations. And both would violate bedrock separation-of-powers limitations."

Trump was subsequently indicted, in a case that Anthony Michael Kries, a professor of election and employment law at Georgia State University described to the BBC as the “strongest case legally” against Trump and “absolutely airtight.” Unfortunately, Cannon was then assigned to preside over the case. 

She has since delayed the case, refusing to set a start date for trial, piling on postponements of previously stated deadlines, and repeatedly asking for the refiling of motions. Each move by Cannon has resulted in questions concerning both her experience and political leanings.

Cannon’s first intervention into the Trump classified documents story was characterized as “deeply problematic” by legal experts. Monday’s decision, after two years of Cannon’s legal misbehavior, has led experts like Noah Rosenblum, an assistant professor at NYU School of Law, to call the dismissal “bonkers,” exclaiming, “She is just making things up.”

 

 

 

 

Another Alito Flag Operation

Un-Godly Way of Life?

How is This Activist Judge Still on the Supreme Court?

Disgraced U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said the political rift between the left and the right would be extremely difficult to repair and that one side was “going to win,” according to secretly recorded comments at a private event earlier this month.  Lauren Windsor, who describes herself as a documentarian and journalist, shared recordings of two encounters with Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts at an annual event held by the Supreme Court Historical Society on June 3. She said she posed as a religious conservative and held discussions with both men.

At one point, Windsor told Alito she didn’t believe conservatives could negotiate with the left in the way that needs to happen for polarization to end.  “I think you’re probably right,” Alito replied in the recorded conversation. “One side or the other is going to win. I don’t know. I mean, there can be a way of working, a way of living together peacefully, but it’s difficult, you know, because there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised. They really can’t be compromised.”

Windsor went on to say that people who “believe in God have got to keep fighting … to return our country to a place of godliness.”  “I agree with you,” Alito responded. “I agree with you.” 

The recordings were released as the court faces new ethics questions raised by reports that two flags affiliated with the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrectionists were flown outside Alito’s homes in recent years. The justice has refused calls to recuse himself from cases before the court related to the attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump and to the former president’s claims of absolute immunity from prosecution for his actions while in office.

Windsor’s conversations with Roberts were far more confrontational, but elicited an expected response from a true jurist who is not a religious activist interested in maintaining separation of church and state as required by the constitution. As Windsor attempted to tell the chief justice the nation needs to be put on a more “moral path,” Roberts pushed back. “Would you want me to be in charge of putting the nation on a more moral path?” he asked. “That’s for people we elect. That’s not for lawyers.”

When Windsor again tried to say that America is a “Christian nation,” Roberts took umbrage. “I don’t know that we live in a Christian nation,” he said. “I know a lot of Jewish and Muslim friends who would say maybe not, and it’s not our job to do that.”

 Chief Justice Roberts should demand Alito's resignation from the court immediately-- Alito has no shame whatsoever-- lying about the recent flag incident and actively trying to destroy the separation of church and state.

Chicken a L'Orange

Donald Trump repeatedly claimed that he wanted to testify during his criminal trial in New York, that he had “no problem” with testifying, and even insisted that he would "absolutely" testify.  "I'm testifying. I tell the truth, I mean, all I can do is tell the truth. And the truth is that there is no case," Trump said. 

But the truth is that Trump isn’t going to testify. Because today, Trump’s defense team rested its case without Trump coming near the witness stand. 

Adult film actress Stormy Daniels was willing to tell the jury what she knew even though one of Trump’s attorneys outright accused her of lying. Former Trump attorney Michael Cohen spent days on the stand undergoing tough cross-examination from Trump’s lead attorney.

But Donald Trump chickened out.  Closing arguments are expected to be heard next Tuesday, after which the jury will determine its verdict.

 

Leader of the Supreme Court's GOP Cabal Called Out on His Judicial Activism

In what should be a surprise to no one, a Supreme Court that is openly scornful of the idea of holding Donald Trump accountable for his various crimes has revealed itself to be even more deranged than previously thought. On Thursday, The New York Times reported that in the days after January 6, 2021, the Capitol insurrectionists earned at least one supporter in a very notable place: Sam Alito’s front yard. Flying above the justice’s home in suburban Washington was an upside-down American flag, which had become a well-known symbol adopted by aggrieved Trump voters who believed the election had been stolen— and that the only way to restore the proper constitutional order was to hang Mike Pence.  The incident adds to concerns about an institution that’s increasingly seen as partisan and lacking strict ethical guidelines.

The revelation is the latest blow to a Supreme Court that was already under fire as it considers unprecedented cases against Trump and some of those charged with insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.  The partisan display came at a time when the Supreme Court was considering an election case.  Alito, with no shame whatsoever, tried to blame it on his wife.  He claimed the flag was flown by her amid a dispute with neighbors over the neighbor's anti-Trump lawn sign.  So let me get this right-- Alito thought it was okay to violate judicial ethics because a neighbor was exercising their First Amendment rights?

 

Democrat Dick Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on Alito to recuse himself from two cases currently pending before the Supreme Court that involve the 2020 election and the Capitol insurrection.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement: "Samuel Alito should apologize immediately for disrespecting the American flag and sympathizing with right-wing violent insurrectionists. He must recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 election and former President Donald Trump. Congress should immediately consider legislation to impose an ethical code of conduct on a runaway Supreme Court. The Constitution demands and the American people deserve more from a justice serving on the highest court in the land than baseless election denial."

It's clear where Alito's political leanings are, and he is not shy in letting his religious and conservative politics influence his decisions-- he should resign.

Cannon Fodder

Trump Is Expected to Lose Even Before His Defense Starts

The prosecutors in the Hush Money trial are expected to wrap their case after Michael Cohen's testimony this week. So how is it going so far? For once, Trump claims to be happy with his lawyers’ performance after a long history of fractious relationships with his attorneys. But the problem is that they are not doing a particularly good job defending him-- in fact, Trump’s legal team has made several considerable, and at times baffling, missteps over the course of the trial that have increased the odds of a conviction.

Most devastatingly, lead attorney Todd Blanche, in his opening statement, repeated Trump’s claim that he never had a sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels. That was followed by days of testimony last week that — if you believe Daniels’ very persuasive account — effectively demonstrated that a central plank of Trump’s defense is a lie and has been a lie for years, and that the jury cannot trust even Trump’s lead counsel to tell them the truth.

Prosecutors had no choice but to put Daniels on after Blanche affirmatively called her a liar in his opening statement, and they had to elicit considerable detail about the sexual encounter in order to establish her credibility in response to Blanche’s attack inside the courtroom and Trump’s years of attacks outside of it. Not only was that the appropriate way for the government to defend the integrity of its investigation and its witness, it was also an unmissable opportunity for them to tank the credibility of Trump’s entire legal defense.

Another major misstep occurred in the form of defense lawyer Susan Necheles’ cross-examination of Daniels. Necheles went to considerable lengths to suggest that Daniels had been motivated by money when she agreed to keep her story quiet in the run-up to the 2016 election. But that doesn't actually matter-- to prevail on the charges, the prosecutors only needed Daniels' testimony to establish that she and Trump had sex.  And if Trump doesn't testify, then Daniels' testimony goes unrebutted. 

It is also very bad when the witness manages to embarrass the cross-examiner, as Daniels did on multiple occasions. Trump’s legal team appears to have assumed that Daniels was dumb. What emerged instead from Daniels’ time on cross-examination was a woman who is resourceful, sharp and quick-witted. She effectively turned the tables on Necheles, likely making her more sympathetic and credible in the eyes of the jury.

The government’s case also began with some witnesses (the former publisher of the National Enquirer David Pecker and Daniels’ former lawyer Keith Davidson) who Trump’s legal team should have portrayed as peripheral to the government’s case, and as lacking any direct knowledge of Trump’s conduct in connection with the alleged falsification of business records (the actual core of the case). Instead, Trump attorney Emil Bove pursued oddly long and wandering lines of cross-examination that scored few clear and relevant points for the jury to take away.

As the government’s case draws to a close after Cohen’s testimony, the most important decision will be: should Trump's lawyers put him on the stand in his own defense?  The answer is clearly “no,” and no competent defense lawyer would advise him to take the stand under the circumstances.  The prosecutors have a wealth of material with which to discredit him on cross-examination, including a long history of lying that has been substantiated by major court rulings and jury verdicts in civil proceedings against him in the past year.

Trump is also thin-skinned and incapable of answering difficult questions straightforwardly — very bad traits for any witness on cross-examination.  In addition, Trump has testified in his defense twice in the last six months, and both were a disaster.  It won't be long before we find out if Trump will be a three-time loser.

Which Came First-- the Ignorance or the Hate?