c.im is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
C.IM is a general, mainly English-speaking Mastodon instance.

Server stats:

2.9K
active users

#kavanaugh

2 posts2 participants0 posts today

FBI probe of Kavanaugh constrained by Trump White House, report finds

In September 2018, as allegations of sexual misconduct against M. threatened his confirmation to the Supreme Court,

President Donald Trump vowed that the FBI would have “free rein” to vet the claims.

Trump said the FBI was “talking to everybody” and added on social media:
“I want them to interview whoever they deem appropriate, at their discretion.”

⭐️The president’s comments came as a surprise to the FBI,
according to a new report from a Democratic senator based on previously undisclosed correspondence between the agency and the White House.

💥FBI officials — directed to conduct a very limited inquiry in a week’s time — requested “additional guidance” from the White House, citing the public remarks by Trump and other officials describing a freewheeling investigation.

But the White House never authorized the agency to independently probe the sexual misconduct allegations, which Kavanaugh staunchly denied.


The report, which was produced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), a Judiciary Committee member and leading critic of the Kavanaugh confirmation, and provided to The Washington Post ahead of a public release on Tuesday, provides
♦️additional evidence of the tight control exercised by the White House over the FBI investigation
— despite Trump’s claims to the contrary.

The report found that ⚠️messages to the FBI tip line regarding Kavanaugh were forwarded directly to the White House and never probed,
and that the FBI had no written protocols for the supplemental background investigation ordered by the White House.

It notes that the FBI was instructed by the White House to talk to 10 potential witnesses and ❌was not given the leeway to pursue corroborating evidence
🔥the absence of which was cited by senators as they narrowly voted to confirm Kavanaugh, marking a major triumph for the conservative movement and locking in a right-leaning majority that would later overturn the constitutional right to abortion.

washingtonpost.com/politics/20

The Washington Post · FBI probe of Kavanaugh constrained by Trump White House, report findsBy Beth Reinhard

Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – report

John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly
– and in favor
– of Donald Trump
ahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.

The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on
– and generally favoring
– the Republican former president.

Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts
– who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency
– took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.

In addition to the presidential immunity ruling, the decisions collectively barred states from removing any official
– including Trump
– from a federal ballot as well as declaring the government had overstepped with respect to obstruction of justice charges filed against participants of the 6 January 2021 attack that the former president’s supporters aimed at Congress.

The Times reported that last February, Roberts sent a memo to his fellow supreme court justices regarding the criminal charges against Trump for attempting to overturn the result of the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden.

In the , the Times reported that he criticized a lower court decision that allowed the case to move forward
– and he argued to the other justices that Trump was protected by presidential immunity.

He reportedly said that the supreme court ought to hear the case and grant Trump greater protection from prosecution.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” the Times said that Roberts wrote to the other supreme court justices in the private memo.

According to the Times, some of the conservative justices wanted to delay the decision on the presidential immunity case until after Trump finished running for a second term in the White House in November.

But Roberts advocated for an early hearing and decision
– and ultimately wrote the majority opinion himself.

Before the opinion and ruling went public, the Times reported that Justice Brett had praised Roberts on the ruling,
calling it “extraordinary”.

Their fellow conservative justice Neil
– who, like Kavanaugh, was appointed to the supreme court during Trump’s presidency
– called it “remarkable”.

The decision came out on 1 July and stated that former presidents are entitled to some degree of from criminal prosecution.

Both conservatives and liberals saw it as a huge win for Trump, who
– among a spate of legal problems
– is awaiting sentencing for a criminal conviction in May of falsifying business records to conceal hush-money payments to an adult film actor who alleged an extramarital sexual encounter with him.

The supreme court then returned the case to district judge Tanya , who is overseeing the federal case against Trump for allegedly participating in 💥an illicit effort to reverse his defeat in the 2020 election.

That left her tasked with having to figure out how to apply the US supreme court’s decision.

The Times also reported that in the case about 💥whether individual states could kick Trump off the ballot
based on language in the US constitution which bars insurrections from holding office,
⚠️ Roberts told his colleagues that he wanted the decision to be and .

All nine justices initially agreed that Trump should remain on state ballots.

♦️But then, the Times reports, four conservative justices suggested additions to the ruling,
❌ including proposing that Congress would have to approve enforcement of the insurrectionist ban in the constitution.

theguardian.com/us-news/2024/s

The Guardian · Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – reportBy Anna Betts

, the conservative activist with an estimated
💥 $1 billion at his disposal,
is threatening to withhold money from the dozens of groups he supports 👉 unless they develop plans to "weaponize" their ideas.

Why it matters:

Leo's call for conservative groups to get will send shockwaves through the right-wing ecosystem he helped create.

Leo wants less conversation and more action
— fewer seminars and more campaigns
— as part of a plan to
♦️"crush liberal dominance at the choke points of influence and power in our society,"
he told the groups in a letter obtained by Axios.

The goal should be to direct "funding🔸 to operationalize or weaponize the conservative vision," Leo wrote.

Zoom in:

Leo, 59, is telling organizations backed by his that he's undertaking a
"comprehensive review" of his grant-making process.

His letter doesn't mention any specific groups by name, but they know who they are.

Groups such as Teneo,
Honest Elections Project,
Consumers's Research and
Do No Harm
are examples of organizations that have adopted
the kind of Leo encourages, according to a source close to the 85 Fund.

Those groups have run campaigns that have achieved measurable results, such as
Consumers' Research's work on ESG investing,
which has been featured in congressional hearings.

Decisions about future funding will be shared with the groups by the end of November, Leo's letter said.

Zoom out:

Leo helped build the , an organization for conservative law students,
into an incubator for lawyers and judges that reshape the federal judiciary and American society.

He helped former President Trump select three conservative jurists for the Supreme Court
— Neil , Brett and Amy Coney .
They've transformed federal law on issues ranging from (overturning Roe v. Wade) to -.

In 2022, the New York Times revealedhow a nonprofit Leo controls,
the , received a ⭐️$1.6 billion contribution from a conservative donor, ,
who gifted the shares of the company he founded before they were sold.

Leo has an estimated
⭐️$1 billion left to spend,
according to the Financial Times.

Leo, who is credited with the initial $1.6 billion windfall to Marble Freedom Trust, has been responsible for raising donations and support for the 85 Fund.

Between the lines:

Behind Leo's new push is his admiration for what he views as successes of progressive nonprofit groups
such as The and the
,
supported by .

Leo is also convinced that liberal organizations and ideas have captured most influential institutions in government,
media, entertainment and academia.

"They invested in talent pipelines to populate the power centers inside government,
where policy would be implemented,"
Leo writes.

"They incubated litigation as a means of leveraging the law to produce change."

The other side:

As Leo's prominence and influence have increased,
his methods and his conservative network have drawn scrutiny
— and provoked outrage
— in progressive circles.

axios.com/2024/09/12/leonard-l

Axios · Scoop: Activist Leonard Leo pushes to "weaponize" conservativesBy Hans Nichols

Samuel Alito accepted concert tickets from conservative German aristocrat

, the US supreme court justice, accepted $900 concert tickets from a Catholic German aristocrat known for her unabashed conservative views and ties to rightwing activists, his latest financial disclosure form reveals.

reportedly gifted the tickets to Alito and his wife to allow them to attend the Regensburg castle festival,
an annual summer music extravaganza hosted at her 500-room castle in Bavaria.

The princess, a descendant of princes of the Holy Roman empire, is noted for ties with , a key supporter and former aide of , and connections to figures in the Catholic hierarchy opposed to Pope Francis.

Her donation to Alito is set out in the justice’s annual financial disclosure report, which he filed late after requesting an extension.

The declaration follows a series of controversies over the ethics of supreme court justices amid revelations that some, including Alito himself and Justice , have accepted gifts from wealthy benefactors without disclosing on mandatory forms.

Alito has been at the centre of reports that he accepted a private jet free travel gift for a luxury salmon fishing trip from a conservative billionaire who had cases pending before the supreme court.

He previously met von Thurn und Taxis along with fellow justice when she visited the supreme court in 2019 along with , who was dismissed from his position as head of the Catholic’s church’s doctrinal body by Pope Francis, and , a leading anti-LGBTQ+ activist.

Von Thurn und Taxis’s palatial castle in Regensburg – the venue for the concert attended by Alito and his wife – has been mooted by Bannon as a potential venue for a 🔸European network of finishing schools for rightwing conservatives.
After her reinvention as a conservative Catholic activist, she drew criticism in 2001 after saying on a television talkshow that the high rate of Aids in Africa was due, not to a lack of safe sex, but because
“the Blacks like to copulate a lot”.
She later tried to amend her remarks, saying Africans had a lot of sex due to the continent’s hot climate.

theguardian.com/us-news/articl

The Guardian · Samuel Alito accepted concert tickets from conservative German aristocratBy Robert Tait

Breaking: SCOTUS, 5-4, allows courts to block full Title IX sex discrimination rule during appeals

Gorsuch joins Sotomayor's dissent, along with Kagan and Jackson

As wrote for the dissenters, “Today … a majority of this Court leaves in place preliminary injunctions that bar the Government from enforcing the entire rule
—including provisions that bear no apparent relationship to respondents’ alleged injuries.
Those injunctions are overbroad.”

That concern about overbroad injunctions led the court 🔸earlier this year to partially stay an injunction blocking Idaho’s ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors 🔸
— allowing the state to enforce the ban against most people during the appeal.

Neither Chief Justice John , who joined ’s 2020 majority in Bostock, *
nor Justices Amy Coney or Brett , who in other instances have criticized overly broad injunctions, were willing to provide the four dissenters with a fifth vote to allow some of the Title IX rule to go into effect while litigation continues.

Instead, they joined with the court’s two most extreme-right members, Justices Clarence and Sam , to ♦️allow the full rule to be blocked during litigation♦️

(* In Bostock, the court held that the sex discrimination ban in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes a ban on sexual orientation discrimination and gender identity discrimination.)
lawdork.com/p/scotus-5-4-title

Law Dork · SCOTUS, 5-4, allows courts to block full Title IX sex discrimination rule during appealsBy Chris Geidner

Article III of the Constitution, which defines the roles and powers of the court system, says:
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”

Congresswoman 🔸Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 🔸is taking the Framers at their word;
this week, she introduced
♦️articles of impeachment against both Clarence and Samuel .♦️

While the Republicans on this Court have engaged in a decades-long steady torrent of corruption
—from Chief Justice John ’s wife making over $10 million hustling lawyers into law firms that practice before the Court,
to Clarence ’s million-dollar vacations and mother’s rent-free life,
Samuel ’s paid speeches and luxury vacations with billionaires,
Neil ’s and Amy Coney ’s fealty to the fossil fuel industry that his mother and her father served,
and finally to Brett ’s alleged gambling debts
—Congress has so far🔹overlooked its obligation to, as Article III, Section 2 says, “regulate” the Supreme Court.🔹

’s impeachment resolution calls out the two most egregious examples, Thomas and Alito, for failing to ♦️disclose gifts♦️ from billionaires with issues before the Court.
She also nails them both for refusing to ♦️recuse themselves from cases where they have obvious conflicts♦️, like Thomas’s wife participating in January 6 and Alito’s flag-waving support of the effort to end our democracy.

Most recently, we’ve just discovered that billionaire-with-interests-before-the-Court Harlan even 💥paid for the Thomases to take a luxury, all-expenses-paid trip to Putin’s hometown.💥

👉Any other federal judge in America would have been taken off the bench had he or she behaved the way these two have.👈
Right-wing media is laughing at Ocasio-Cortez, pointing out that since Republicans control both the House Judiciary Committee and the entire House itself, her impeachment resolution won’t even make it out of committee.
They shouldn’t be so sure of themselves.
First, there’s a very real possibility
—in part because of this court’s extremist rulings, particularly overturning Roe v. Wade
—that the House will fall to Democratic hands next January and her effort could have a new, albeit uphill, life.
But second, and more important, it’s possible that her highlighting the corruption of at least two Republicans on the court may cause some of the others
—particularly Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh
—to become more moderate in their rulings going forward.

The last time the Supreme Court experienced such a crisis of confidence with the American people was in the 1935-1937 era, and the way it resolved is fascinating.

Back then, four of the justices, Pierce Butler, James Clark McReynolds, George Sutherland, and Willis Van Devanter, were collectively known as the Four Horsemen.

They were invariably joined by one of the other justices
—most frequently Owen Roberts
—to strike down President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s popular New Deal legislation that attempted to address unemployment and poverty.

The Four Horseman claimed to be originalists or
“strict constructionists” who somehow could read the Founders’ intent from the Constitution, disregarding the historical reality that the founders were not even remotely of a single mind.

For 40 years during the preceding Lochner era, the court had struck down dozens of state laws protecting workers,
including women and children.

During the period between 1897 and 1929, the court was ruling largely with the booming industrialist economy, and its conservative members saw the labor movement as disruptive rather than positive.

However, with the onset of the Republican Great Depression, these industrialists lost popular support
—but the Supreme Court had not caught up with popular opinion.

In 1935, the court ruled that both the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the National Industrial Recovery Act were unconstitutional.

The rulings gutted a large piece of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.

Shortly before Roosevelt was reelected in 1936, the court went even farther and struck down a New York State law that established a minimum wage for women and children in Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo.

The pendulum of popular opinion swung against the court almost overnight.

In 1937, the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act were on their way to the Court.

Considering how the Four Horsemen had ruled during FDR’s first term, Roosevelt knew that he needed to do something or risk losing both pieces of legislation along with the collapse of his entire New Deal agenda.

With the New Deal on the line, Roosevelt
—much like AOC today
—went on the attack.

On February 5, 1937, just months after his landslide reelection, he announced his plan:
he asked Congress for the authority to appoint one new justice for each justice then on the bench over 70 years old.

newrepublic.com/article/183762

The New Republic · AOC’s Move on Thomas and Alito Has All the Right Historical Echoes Ocasio-Cortez’s articles of impeachment against the rogue justices probably won’t remove them. But history suggests it might help tame the court in other ways.

Justice Clarence shares ’s Christianity-infused MAGA jurisprudence;

Justices Brett and Amy Coney , meanwhile, lean toward ’ side of the divide.

Justice Neil is a chaos agent who does not seem personally pious but takes an alarmingly totalizing view of religious freedom.)

Rumors of a 3–3–3 court have been greatly exaggerated,
yet there is a part-time alliance between Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett
to stave off Trumpist extremism in a subset of cases.

This coalition is mirrored in the lower courts—where, as Vox’s Ian Millhiser has written, traditional conservatives sometimes join with Democratic appointees to beat back the insurgency.

slate.com/news-and-politics/20

Slate · Those Secret Recordings of Alito and Roberts Revealed the True Stakes of the 2024 ElectionBy Mark Joseph Stern
Continued thread

But even as Currie proudly championed the bill, she would not know the full story behind it until after Roe fell more than five years later.

In an interview, she explained that she thought her vision for a 15-week cutoff,
rooted in her foundational story of the beating fetal heart,
had driven the plan.

No one had told her that A.D.F. had coordinated its strategy with Taylor before their meeting,
or that 15 weeks was part of its specific legal plan to undermine Roe, she said.

Or that Tseytlin had brainstormed this possibility at Leonard Leo’s Federalist Society cocktail hour
and advanced it at an upscale California resort alongside Republican leaders and attorneys.

When Gov. Phil Bryant of Mississippi signed the bill into law, with Currie smiling next to him,
it became the tightest restriction on abortion in the nation.

It made no exceptions for rape or incest, just a narrow provision to preserve the life of the woman or in cases of “severe” fetal abnormality.

Less than an hour later, Jackson Women’s Health Organization
— the Pink House
— filed a lawsuit through their attorneys at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The Pink House performed abortions only until 16 weeks of pregnancy,
the center’s lawyers wrote,
and had done just 78 abortions when the fetus was identified as being 15 weeks or older in 2017.

Going after that small fraction, of course, was exactly the plan.

Not too early in pregnancy and not too late,
but exactly the line that might compel the Supreme Court to wade back into the subject of abortion.

“We were seeking to be incremental and strategic,” Taylor said.

Christian activists, he said, were learning to control their “moral passion” so as not to lose sight of their long-term goal.

There were still so many unknowns.

For the law to serve its intended purpose, anti-abortion activists needed a majority on the Supreme Court.

A.D.F. attorneys and their allies like Tseytlin had designed the legislation to target Kennedy,
but what they couldn’t foresee was that Kennedy would retire that summer,
allowing Trump to fill a second seat,
this time with Brett .

Now conservatives had a 5-4 split on the Supreme Court,
with Kavanaugh joining Roberts, Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

And there was more to come.

“As a Christian,” Currie said, “sometimes you don’t know God’s plan, and he kind of makes things happen.”

In her Virginia office just across the Potomac River from Washington,
Marjorie Dannenfelser, of the Susan B. Anthony List
(now known as Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America)
and the A.D.F. board,
had a detailed map drawn on a wall-size whiteboard.

From a distance, it looked like the kind used by political campaigns to track polling and turnout, swing districts and congressional votes.

But this one was color-coded to indicate states where Republicans held both the state legislature and the governor’s mansion
and was partitioned by circuit-court-of-appeals jurisdiction.

By early 2019, Republicans held complete control of state governments in 22 states,
giving them total power over abortion legislation.

Some 20 cases, with different legal strategies to gut Roe and Casey, were in litigation in lower courts.

A magenta triangle meant the state had passed a
“heartbeat bill,”
generally a ban that started around six weeks;
a green square signified a “pain-capable” abortion law,
typically a 20-week ban.

Red stars showed the federal appeals courts where judges nominated by Republicans outnumbered those nominated by Democrats
— of the 11 on the board, they controlled seven.

It was a map of how all the laws were moving up toward the ultimate court that mattered.

And now, on Sept. 18, 2020,
with the news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death,
Dannenfelser and her compatriots could capture another majority.

The kind of Supreme Court supermajority that could take down Roe.

(7/n)

Trump lawyers’ head-scratching legal filings just keep coming

Former president Donald ’s legal team, in a Supreme Court filing this week, decided it would be a good idea to cite the past words of Justice Brett M. .

In doing so, though, they reinforced just how drastic what they seek is: absolute for broadly defined presidential acts.

Kavanaugh’s actual words cast that as unthinkable.

The filing is merely the latest head-scratching move from Trump’s lawyers.
And it’s not even the first time they have filed something to the nation’s highest court that fits that description.

The current example involves the lawyers’ citation of a 2009 Minnesota Law Review article from Kavanaugh
— almost a decade before his ascent to the Supreme Court.

To hear Trump’s lawyers tell it, Kavanaugh’s article reinforced the dangers of presidents being subject to criminal and civil actions.

“In short, ‘a President who is concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation is almost inevitably going to do a worse job as President,’ ” the Trump team’s brief says, quoting Kavanaugh.

It then adds, in its own words: “The same conclusion holds if that criminal investigation is waiting in the wings until he leaves office.”

Left unstated
— but soon noted by law professor Ryan Goodman of Just Security
— was that Kavanaugh in the same article actually took a different position from the one Trump’s lawyers advanced.

While Kavanaugh posited that presidents shouldn’t have to face criminal investigations or prosecution while in office, he took no such position on post-presidential indictments.

Indeed, he seemed to take the constitutionality of post-presidential indictments for granted.

washingtonpost.com/politics/20

Washington Post · Analysis | Trump lawyers’ head-scratching legal filings just keep comingIn a Supreme Court filing this week, Trump’s lawyers really reached in, citing the past words of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. And it’s hardly the only recent example of their puzzling and seemingly desperate arguments.

From reproductive rights to marriage equality to trans lives, the fallout from the decision overruling Roe v. Wade is extreme, dangerous
— and expanding

The five justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who overturned Roe v. Wade 20 months ago Saturday gave a green light to a new brand of Republican extremism in hyperdrive
— a hyperdrive that has been on full, frightening display this week.

Many of the most extreme legal developments since late 2020 have been advanced by far-right Christian legal advocates or authoritarian Trump backers.
In turn, the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and other rulings since then have empowered those advocates to go further.

Three of the biggest stories in the news this week are, more or less directly, the result of Justice Sam Alito’s Dobbs opinion for the court
— joined as it was by Justice Clarence and Donald Trump’s three appointees, Justices Neil , Brett , and Amy Coney .

Mix in Gorsuch’s 2023 opinion for those five justices and Chief Justice John in the wedding website (that wasn’t) case that created a First Amendment exemption to public accommodations nondiscrimination laws, and we arrive at 2024.

The Alabama Supreme Court’s attack on in vitro fertilization ( @IVF ), a pair of attacks on @marriage , and the attack on in Oklahoma and their death the next day all emerge from the ideology of, devices employed by, and cases decided by this Supreme Court majority.

We ignore their connections and danger at the peril of all who do not want this to become our national reality

lawdork.com/p/dobbs-ivf-marria

Law Dork · This week, we faced all that the Dobbs justices unleashedBy Chris Geidner