Another day another Clarence cash drip. Now we got head of FedSoc funneling money to his wife for “consulting” or some such via a dark money PAC.

Explanation? We did it because we knew people would think it looked bad, and you just proved us right!!!

Right. That's why ten figures sounded crazy to me.

Haha, yeah I didn't think a billion but over a 100mil is pretty crazy.
Congress should make at least an upper middle class living for DC which isn't peanuts but damn...

The Supreme Court issued an important decision today rejecting the Independent State Legislature theory. It's an outrage that the decision was only 6-3, but it's still a disaster averted, at least for now.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/27/11811...court-decision

Trump says he’s not done moving the Supreme Court to the right

The Supreme Court has become increasingly radical and regressive,
and earlier Democratic warnings have come to fruition.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...ight-rcna92356

He probably will. Dems haven't shown they can do anything to control who gets in.

Anita Hill told us who Clarence Thomas was and we did not believe her.

Clarence Thomas wanted to be a priest, then he wanted to be really really rich.

They believed, they didn't care. The Democrats were afraid to oppose a black nominee.

Sounds about right.

They took down the "Whites Only" signs, soon to be replaced with "straights only"?

wonder how the MAGAs are going to react to the first "MAGA Supporters Will Not Be Served Here" signs go up

GOP struggles to explain opposition to Supreme Court ethics bill.

GOP members clung to one underlying point:
The justices must be allowed to police themselves without interference.

While Defending Supreme Court, Graham Can’t Help But Admit Justices Need ‘To Get Their House In Order’

And yet, Graham not only rejected the Democratic reform effort, he also insisted that lawmakers —
who have oversight authority over the federal judiciary — steer clear of any kind of legislation on the matter.
GOP senators are comfortable with ethics limits on lower courts,
but the high court, and its dominant far-right majority, must be left alone.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/w...house-in-order

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...bill-rcna95495

They practically did that in Northern Virginia, where some restaurants refused to serve members of the Trump administration. They were not amused and screamed and discrimination.

So this is basically legal now?

Now? When wouldn't it have been?

Working for Donald Trump is not a class which is protected from discrimination. Businesses can decline to have you as a customer for any reason not mentioned in the law.

Exactly.

Republicans are revolting against simple math with their
attempts to spurn Supreme Court rulings on gerrymandering.

the new, seemingly unlawful map was drawn after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy contacted Alabama
legislators to express his concern that a new map would lead to Republicans losing their majority

U.S. is becoming increasingly diverse, and gerrymandering can only do so much to curb the impact of that diversity

https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/re...-map-rcna96982

Ethics of Supreme Court Justices:

If the U.S. Congress causes laws to be passed and enacted which establish a code of ethics binding upon the Supreme Court's justices, and the justices oaths of office was modified to explicitly mention such a code, then the Supreme court could choose to hear plaintiffs' complaints of justices' impropriety. Cases before the Supreme Court are adjudicated by the majority of the Supreme Court justices. They would determine if the new ethics code laws were violated, and what the remedies are required by those drafted ethic laws.

Our U.S. Supreme Court with regard to legal matters, are our nation's supreme determinators. Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from Supreme Court, under pressure, issues ethics code specific to justices - The Washington Post :
“ … Supreme Court justices stung by controversies over the court’s ethics pledged Monday to follow a broad code of conduct promoting “integrity and impartiality,” but without a way to enforce its standards against those who fall short... “.

In early January 2000, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was at a
five-star beach resort in Sea Island, Georgia, hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.
After almost a decade on the court, Thomas had grown frustrated with his financial situation

Thomas’ salary at the time was $173,600. He nevertheless made no secret of his desire to
make more money, and privately pushed for an end to the ban on justices giving paid speeches.

A sitting Supreme Court justice was facing financial strains;
he privately pushed a member of Congress for a higher salary;
his political allies were concerned about his possible retirement,
and conservative billionaires starting providing him with previously undisclosed benefits and a more luxurious lifestyle.

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-...ers-rcna130255

It's tough trying to pay the rent these days when you're only making $315k (adjusted for 2023 dollars).

It would honestly probably be better paying them a good chunk more money.

I think it would be better to have justices who aren't easily corruptible and don't have a tough time living on a budget that most Americans will never be anywhere near. And whose spouses aren't political activists who probably bring in a lot of money as well.

I don't know how that joke of a "justice" hasn't been impeached already. I would love to see a full investigation of the finances and if he has benefited financially from his wife's activities.

Any thoughts on the live hearing yesterday about the Colorado case?

I have only listened to the arguments/questions posed to Jason Murray through its conclusion, but I was very surprised that Kagan seemed to gut him, followed by Jackson.

The tl;Dr is that it's going to be 7-2 or 8-1 that Colorado can't decide if someone is an insurrectionist on its own.

Other details matter and they are still TBD, but the idea that a single state can claim someone is an insurrectionist without something that compels all other states to do the same is a legal joke and will be annihilated and even Kagan made it clear it is not what the constitution implies.

If only the 6 would have been like the very possible 3 leading to a 9-0 vote when it came to abortion.

Just listened to the full live stream and my guess is 8-1