FBI Forwaded Tip Line Complaints About Kavanaugh To White House Counsel Without Investigation

$upport via Cash App

FBI Director Christopher Wray appeared for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on 08/04/22. One of the most interesting moments in the hearing, especially for Supreme Court enthusiasts like Yours Truly, came during the questioning by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse(D-RI). Senator Whitehouse’s questions focused on the supplemental background investigation (B.I.), the FBI conducted on then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, a topic that has been the subject of much speculation on social media.

Senator Whitehouse has been in a battle with FBI Director Wray since 2019, trying to get to the bottom of whether the FBI thoroughly investigated the numerous tips it received from the public regarding then Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

This intro by Senator Whitehouse is important for establishing the context for the ensuing questioning: “As you know, we are now entering the fourth year of a frustrating saga that began with an August 2019 letter from me and Senator Coons, regarding the Kavanaugh supplemental background investigation, and I’d like to try to get that matter wrapped up.”

Senator Whitehouse(video at 0:23): “First, is it true that after [Justice] Kavanaugh-related tips were separated from the regular tip line traffic, they were forwarded to White House counsel without investigation?”

Director Wray(0:47): “When it comes to the tip line, we wanted to make sure that the White House had all the information we have, so when the hundreds of calls started coming in, we gathered those up, reviewed them, and provided them to the White House.”

At that point Senator Whitehouse interjected, “Without investigation”, to which Director Wray responded, “We reviewed them and then provided them to the White House.”

Sen. Whitehouse:“You reviewed them for the purposes of separating them from the tip line traffic, but did not further investigate the ones that related to Kavanaugh, correct?”

Director Wray:“Correct.”

Senator Whitehouse: “Is it also true that in that supplemental B.I., the FBI took directions from the White House as to whom the FBI would question, and even what questions the FBI could ask?”

Director Wray:“It is true that consistent with the longstanding process that we have had going all the way back to at least the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Trump administration, and continue to follow currently under the Biden administration, that in a limited supplemental B.I., we take direction from the requesting entity which in this case, was the White House, as to what follow up they want. That’s the direction we followed, that’s the direction we’ve consistently followed throughout the decades, frankly.”

Director Wray went on to add, “It is true as to the ‘who’, I’m not sure as I sit here, whether it’s also true as to the ‘what questions’, but it is true as to the ‘who’ we interviewed.” In other words Director Wray agreed that in a supplemental B.I., it is true that the White House tells the FBI who to question, he’s just not sure yet, whether the White House also tells the FBI what questions to ask the people they question.

Senator Whitehouse:“By the way, is it true that even today we have not been provided by the FBI, it’s written tip line procedures?”

Director Wray: “Senator, I know that we have provided a lot of information to the committee and to you. I would have to check on that specific item. I know there is some information that you have requested that is not our call to provide, that has to do with interaction, communication with the White House.”

There’s no other way to interpret Director Wray’s responses to Senator Whitehouse’s questions other than (I’ll be happy to stand corrected of course), during the highly contentious Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the complaints the FBI received through its tip line regarding Kavanaugh, were not investigated by the FBI, but instead, forwarded to the White House Counsel. The White House Counsel then told the FBI who among the complainants, the FBI was to question, and possibly, even what questions to ask them.

Folks, no reasonable person presented with this information can ever conclude that the supplemental background investigation into Kavanaugh was “thorough”, as had been portrayed by Senate Republicans during his confirmation hearings. Director Wray argues that this is the same supplemental B.I. process the FBI has used for decades, but as we all know, none of Kavanaugh’s predecessors faced as many serious complaints about their character, requiring a thorough independent investigation. So, while Director Wray raises a valid point regarding consistent FBI practice, reasonable people will agree that Kavanaugh’s case was markedly different, and called for a thorough investigation by the FBI.

Bottom line folks, we’ll wait for Senator Whitehouse’s final report on this issue. As he indicated to Director Wray, he’ll give the FBI one more month to comply with his information requests, after which he will produce a final report on the Kavanaugh supplemental B.I. saga. One only hopes that if Senator Whitehouse’s investigation reveals that there were serious credible allegations against Kavanaugh that went uninvestigated, then an independent investigation will be launched into them immediately.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

VP Harris Calls Out The Hypocrisy Of “Pro-Lifers” Who Consistently Vote Against Laws Meant to Financially Assist Parents

$upport via Cash App

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris sat down for an extensive interview with CNN’s Dana Bash(06/27/22), where she discussed the bombshell Supreme Court decision striking down Roe v Wade, and other issues confronting the Biden administration as we approach the crucial midterm elections this Fall. One of the major highlights of the interview was when VP Harris called out the “abject obvious hypocrisy” of “pro-life” Republicans in Congress, who talk a big game about “right to life”, yet at every turn vote against measures intended to improve the financial situation of parents. It appears congressional Republicans only care about the life of the baby before they are actually born.

Asked by host Dana Bash whether the federal government will step in and help mothers who will be forced to have babies they can’t financially support, VP Harris responded(video at 0:10):“I’m so glad you raised that point because I’m going to say this, and here’s the abject obvious hypocrisy. Those people who say that they do not want to allow a woman to choose, to make the decision with her priest, with her rabbi, with her pastor, that instead the government is going to interfere and make the decision for her. Those same people are the ones who voted against the extension of the child tax credit, the same ones who voted against a tax cut for families to pay for child care, the same ones who are voting against paid family leave, the same ones who vote against putting resources into public schools. I was doing work on maternal mortality. We are pushing to say that for example, Medicaid should be extended for post-partum care from 2 months to 12 months. These are the same people who reject the notion of expansion of medicaid.”

Asked what the Biden administration can do in the form of executive action, VP Harris said that this is a democracy, and therefore Congress is the proper venue for effectively addressing issues related to the reproductive health of women. She said as it currently stands, “the numbers are not there” and so the filibuster remains an obstacle, even though Democrats control the White House, the Senate and the House. VP Harris said codifying Roe v Wade will become a reality if Democrats pick up more seats during the upcoming midterms–a tall order which I suspect will not sit well with already frustrated Dem voters.

Asked to weigh in on whether Supreme Court Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied under oath during their Senate confirmation hearings, VP Harris responded:“I never believed them. I didn’t believe them. That’s why I voted against them.” She added, “It was clear to me when I was sitting in that chair as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee that they were very likely to do what they just did. That was my perspective, that was my opinion, and that’s why I voted like I did.”

As about what the Biden administration is doing to assist working families drowning under high inflation and gas prices, VP Harris pointed out that a lot of this has to do with Putin’s war in Ukraine, and that the Biden administration is working closely with our allies around the world to rectify the situation. She also pointed out the things the Biden administration is doing locally to ease the financial burden on working families, namely, lowering the cost of prescription drugs and child care.

Asked about the January 6th investigation, and whether given her background as a prosecutor, she would bring criminal charges against former President Trump, VP Harris cleverly dodged the question, saying jokingly, “As a former prosecutor, I never comment on another prosecutor’s case.”

Importantly, VP Harris finally settled the lingering rumors that keep popping up in various sections of the mainstream media about President Biden possibly opting out of 2024, or picking a different running mate. She gave host Dana Bash a plain an simple answer to that question: “Joe Biden is running for reelection, and I will be his ticket mate. Full stop.”

Hopefully this will put an end to the annoying MSM rumors about a broken Biden-Harris 2024 ticket. Seriously MSM, there are much more pressing issues to focus on–in 2022!!

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Senator Lindsey Graham Labels Liberal SCOTUS Critics “Constitutional Anarchists”

$upport via Cash App

Senator Lindsey Graham(R-SC), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, appeared on Fox News Sunday(06/26/22) to discuss the bombshell Supreme Court decision striking down the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision which made abortion legal in the United States. Sen Graham lashed out at liberals angered by the high court’s decision, and using it as a basis to call for the high court’s reform/expansion, calling them “constitutional anarchists”.

He said the court’s decision in Roe was a result of 50 years of painstaking work at the ballot box by Republicans, urging Democrats to do the same if they want favorable outcomes from the high court–essentially admitting(whether he realized it, or not), that after 50 years, Republicans have successfully politicized the United States Supreme Court to their advantage.

Sen Graham said(video at 1:25):“This is a huge victory for the pro-life movement. President Trump deserves a lion share of credit here. He fought like a tiger to put three constitutional conservative judges on the court. He stood behind Kavanaugh, and all of us who’ve been working for the last 50 years to get this right, to have a constitutional reset, Friday was a glorious day…When Roe came down[1973], we didn’t burn down the Capitol as conservatives, we didn’t go to liberal justices’ homes and try to intimidate them. The radical left are constitutional anarchists. They are literally trying to change this country from top to bottom. They want to pack the court because they don’t like this decision. they want to abolish the electoral college so California and New York can pick the president in perpetuity…So these constitutional anarchists, here’s my advise to you. Quit trying to burn down America, and work like we did in the fields. Elect people who agree with you at the ballot box…This was worn through the ballot box by conservatives, and we’re not going to let liberals intimidate the rule of law system to take it away from us.”

Asked whether the Roe decision will become the biggest issue in this year’s midterms, Senator Graham disagreed, saying it will be inflation and high gas prices. He then quickly reverted to his constitutional anarchist theme saying(video at 4:42):“For all of you who’ve been working for 50 years to elect members of the House and the Senate and presidents that would put constitutional conservatives on the court, your day finally arrived. And to the left, the way you do this, is to do what we did. You take it to the ballot box, you don’t try to destroy America. These constitutional anarchists like AOC have to be dealt with, and there will be a backlash against this effort to intimidate our judges.”

It bears pointing out that Senator Graham has a history of, for lack of better words, freaking out, every time calls for court reform/expansion come up, so this should not surprise anybody. Evidently the global blowback following the Roe decision has renewed his fears, leading to his constitutional anarchist charge.

Bottom line folks, Sen Graham can cry all he wants about calls for Supreme Court reform by liberals. The fact of the matter is that public confidence in the Roberts Supreme Court is at an all-time low. That in itself, should be grounds for a serious debate into whether the high court is out of touch with the beliefs of a vast majority of Americans. Yours Truly also hopes that given what we witnessed on January 6th 2021, someone in the media, or TeamAOC, would ask Sen Graham exactly what he means when he says, “These constitutional anarchists like AOC have to be dealt with…”

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

AOC Slams SCOTUS After Roe v Wade Decision Saying The High Court Has A “Crisis Of Legitimacy”

$upport via Cash App

Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-NY) appeared on NBC’s Meet The Press(06/26/22) to discuss this week’s bombshell Supreme Court decision overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision, which made abortion legal in the United States. During her interview, Rep Ocasio-Cortez slammed the recently appointed Supreme Court justices behind the 6-3 decision, essentially accusing them of lying to Senators during their confirmation hearings and thus causing a “crisis of legitimacy” within the high court. She also tied longstanding Justice Clarence Thomas to the “crisis of legitimacy” charge, saying Justice Thomas violated the law by not disclosing his income from political organizations.

Rep Ocasio-Cortez said(video at 2:47): “What I believe that the president and the Democatic Party needs to come to terms with, is that this is not just a crisis of Roe, this is a crisis of our democracy. The Supreme Court has dramatically overreached its authority. We had two conservative senators in the United States Senate–Senator Manchin and Senator Collins–come out with a very explosive allegation that several Supreme Court justices misled them during their confirmation hearings and in the lead up to their confirmation. This is a crisis of legitimacy. We have a Supreme Court justice whose wife participated in January 6th, and who used his seat to vote against providing documents that potentially led to evidence of such to investigators in Congress. This is a crisis of legitimacy, and President Biden must address that.”

Asked whether the House Judiciary Committee should begin an investigation into whether Supreme Court justices lied under oath during their confirmation hearings, Rep Ocasio-Cortez responded: “If we allow Supreme Court nominees to lie under oath and secure lifetime appointments to the highest court of the land, and then issue without basis…rulings that deeply undermine the human and civil rights of the majority of Americans, we must see that through. There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and hostile takeover of our democratic institutions. To allow that to stand, is to allow it to happen, and what makes it particularly dangerous, is that it sends a blaring signal to all future nominees that they can now lie to duly elected members of the United States Senate in order to secure Supreme Court confirmations…”

Asked whether she believed lying during confirmation hearings is an impeachable offense, she responded: “I believe so. I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense. I believe that violating federal law in not disclosing income from political organizations, as [Justice] Clarence Thomas did years ago, is also potentially an impeachable offense. I believe that not recusing from cases that one clearly has family members involved in, with very deep violations of conflict of interest, are also impeachable offenses, and I believe that this is something that should be very seriously considered, including by Senators like Joe Manchin and Susan Collins.”

There’s no other way to interpret Rep Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks on Meet The Press(I’ll be happy to stand corrected of course) other than, she’s calling on fellow House Democrats to pursue impeachment proceedings against sitting Supreme Court justices for among other things, lying under oath during their confirmation hearings. It will be interesting to see whether her fellow Democrats will take her up on the impeachment suggestion.

Bottom line folks, public confidence in the Roberts Supreme Court was already waning even before the bombshell decision striking down Roe v Wade. There is no question however, that the global condemnation that has followed the Roe decision, will renew calls for the high court’s restructuring/expansion. Even impeachment calls like the one by Rep Ocasio-Cortez, which would have previously been ignored, or dismissed out of hand, will now be taken seriously. Simply put, there’s a growing perception among the public, that the Roberts Supreme Court, does not resemble previous high courts, which were generally deemed to be above the political fray. Chief Justice Roberts would be best advised to step in, and address these concerns, hopefully via a public address to the nation. Ignoring these problems, will not make them go away.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Senator Collins Slams Justices Kavanaugh & Gorsuch Over “Inconsistent” Roe v Wade Decision

$upport via Cash App

An interesting segment on Fox News’ The Story w/Martha MacCallum(06/24/22) delved into the feud brewing between Senator Susan Collins(R-Maine) and conservative Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch over the decision by the high court to overturn Roe v Wade, a 1973 precedent that legalized abortion in the United States. According to Fox News Congressional Correspondent Aishah Hasni, Senator Collins is not just upset because she was misled during the Senate confirmation hearings on questions about respecting precedents, but also because this bombshell decision comes at a time of great division in the country, and she fears the decision will only widen the divisions.

Senator Collins issued a statement saying:“This ill-considered action will further divide the country at a moment when, more than ever in modern times, we need the Court to show more consistency and restraint. Throwing out a precedent overnight that the country has relied upon for half a century is not conservative. It is a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to chaos, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government.”

Senators Collins and Lisa Murkowski(R-Alaska) have apparently introduced a bill which aims to codify Roe v Wade, so we’ll see how far that goes.

Bottom line folks, Republicans routinely dismiss criticisms of the out-of-touch Roberts Supreme Court as simply “rantings of the radical left.” it will be interesting to see how they deal with the very sharp criticisms leveled at the high court by moderate Republican Susan Collins, and especially, her written assertion–not AOC’s or The Squad’s–that what the court engaged in re Roe v wade was “not conservative” but rather, “a sudden and radical jolt to the country that will lead to chaos, anger, and a further loss of confidence in our government”, which essentially translates to an extremist court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Did Ginni Thomas Collude With Her Supreme Court Husband In Effort To Overturn Election Results?

$upport via Cash App

Virginia “Ginni” Thomas with her husband, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

An interesting segment on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes delved into a Washington Post piece by Emma Brown, which dropped the bombshell that Ginni Thomas’ role in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results was much more than has been reported thus far. Specifically, Emma Brown’s piece included two new emails which show Ginni Thomas pressuring Arizona lawmakers to send in fake electors for Trump, even though Joe Biden had won the state. One of the lawmakers Ginni emailed is Arizona State Representative Shawnna Bolick, She is the wife of Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick. Justice Bolick is a longtime close friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and the two worked together before Thomas joined the high court.

The two justices are apparently so close, that Thomas is a godfather to one of Bolick’s sons. Crucially, State Rep Shawnna Bolick is currently running to be Arizona’s Secretary of State, a position that would give her power to do exactly what Ginni Thomas was asking her to do with the 2020 election results. As host Chris Hayes correctly points out, this naturally raises questions as to whether Ginni and Clarence Thomas were working in tandem/colluding to help Trump overturn the 2020 election results. The answer to this question is crucial in determining Justice Thomas’ continued fitness for the high court

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes(video at 0:47): “The latest revelation about what Ginni Thomas did in the wake of the 2020 election shows a level of tactical sophistication that was clearly absent from those absolutely crazy texts, and crucially, these actions were connected to her husband, the longest sitting Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in a way that makes it harder for him and his defenders to fall back on the claim that they keep their work and personal lives separate. The Washington Post reports that Ginni Thomas emailed two Arizona Republican lawmakers pressuring them to help reverse the[2020]election results. The first of the two emails came days after Joe Biden was declared the winner…Thomas sent that message to Russell “Rusty” Bowers, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives…The other recipient was State Representative Shawnna Bolick, wife of Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick. Justice Bolick is a longtime close friend of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. They worked together before Thomas was appointed to the court and Thomas is even the godfather to one of his sons. Shawnna Bolick responded to Ginni Thomas right away…She went on to give Ginni Thomas guidance on how to submit complaints about any of her experiences with voter fraud in Arizona. Sure enough, just a couple of months later, Bolick introduced a bill that would give the Arizona legislature the power to throw out election results, just as Ginni Thomas wanted them to do. Luckily, that bill never made it out of committee, but Shawnna Bolick is now running for Secretary of State in Arizona, a role where she would oversee elections.”

There’s no other way to interpret Chris Hayes’ commentary other than, Ginni Thomas, in her efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, sought out the Bolicks because she knew they were close to her Supreme Court husband. She wasn’t just some unhinged spouse sending out crazy texts/emails about overturning the elections, as her Republican defenders would have you believe. This strongly suggests that Ginni was colluding with her husband in these efforts, and as host Chris Hayes correctly points out, we at the very minimum, deserve an investigation into any such collusion to clear up the air. As it currently stands, this appearance of impropriety casts a dark shadow on the high court.

Bottom line folks, as Yours Truly has repeated stated, Democrats are horrible at messaging. This Ginni Thomas saga is a real scandal that they could have/still can capitalize on, as we approach the midterm elections. There’s already great liberal apprehension about the Supreme Court following the recent leak of a majority opinion, and Democrats can make a compelling case that a vote for them is a vote to save the high court.

But don’t take Yours Truly’s word for it, here’s what another MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan said regarding Ginni and Justice Thomas, “OK, fine you[congressional Dems] don’t want to try and impeach him? Why not call for him to resign? Why not hold hearings? Make a big deal of this. What do you think Republicans would be doing if the situation was reversed, and this was a liberal Justice?” We know what would happen, Mehdi. Republicans would have booted the liberal Justice out of the high court by now, whether or not they could prove spousal collusion. That’s the difference, and it’s sad.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Former AG Holder: Americans Should Prepare For An “Ideologically Driven” Supreme Court Not Tethered To Precedent

$upport via Cash App

Former AG Holder on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports show(05/12/22)

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder appeared on MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports show (05/12/22) to discuss his new book “Our Unfinished March”. During his interview, he was asked about the controversy caused by the leaked draft Supreme Court majority opinion dealing with abortion, to which he gave a very interesting response. He said while the leak itself was a serious issue, the bigger problem Americans need prepare themselves for, is an “ideologically driven” Supreme Court, that will have little regard to precedent–an issue Democrats need to focus on as we approach the midterm elections.

Former AG Holder(video at 0:35):“I think the leak is unprecedented both in its breadth, its scope, and its completeness. We’ve heard rumors before about where the court is going to go, how the justices perhaps were aligned, but never actually seen a draft opinion, and that’s serious. That’s something that needs to be addressed. But what we really need to focus on is what’s contained in that leaked opinion, and where the court appears to be lining up. Looks like they are going to overturn Roe v Wade, inconsistent with the notion that you adhere to precedent that people have relied on over the course of the last 50 years. It’s an attack on the right to privacy, and so the question has to be asked, is it only going to be abortion that is going to be at risk, or is same sex marriage going to be at risk? The regulation of contraception, is that going to be at risk? Even interacial marriage. All of these things are based on the right to privacy, which this opinion in its form as we saw it, really goes after that right to privacy.”

Holder added that people need to get prepared for an “ideologically driven” Supreme Court, that is “not going to adhere to the extent that they should, to precedent.” This is of course very troubling given the weighty issues the high court is getting ready to deal with–affirmative action, gun cases, voting rights, etc. Democrats can capitalize on this Supreme Court issue, but only if they present it in AG Holder’s terms–an untethered high court that threatens many of the legal precedents we have come to rely on. This approach will likely drive more people to the polls this Fall, as opposed to only presenting it as an abortion/reproductive rights issue.

Bottom line folks, Dems sucking at messaging is nothing new. “Leakgate” presents them with an opportunity to drive Dem voters afraid of an untethered Supreme Court, to the polls in record numbers, and bucking the midterm election trend which typically favors the party out of power(GOP). Hopefully Dems will get their Supreme Court messaging right this time around by railing against the MAGA Supreme Court as an affront to all the legal precedents we have come to rely on for decades.

It’s also worth noting that former AG Holder, a self-described “institutionalist”, said that after initially being opposed to a criminal prosecution of former President Trump, he now believes, given the revelations about his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, that he needs to be held accountable. Surely, current AG Garland has to take this seriously, coming from a former prosecutor, who recently held his position.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@grassrootsdempolitics.com

Elie Mystal: The “Chief Architect” Of The Assault On Voting Rights Is Chief Justice John Roberts

$upport via Cash App

The Nation’s Justice Correspondent, Elie Mystal, dropped a major bombshell on MSNBC’s American Voices (01/16/22), when he slammed U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts as the “chief architect” of the assault on voting rights. Unlike many mainstream media pundits who engage in incendiary rhetoric just for ratings, Elie Mystal backed up his bombshell assertion with very good examples that would make any reasonable person either agree with him, or at the very least, find his assertion quite plausible. The fact that Elie Mystal’s bombshell claims pass the plausibility test, should compel Chief Justice Roberts to address them, for the sake of the Supreme Court’s integrity.

Elie Mystal specifically said: “The chief architect of this assault on our voting rights is not Mitch McConnell, it’s not ot David Duke, it’s not whatever boogey man you think is hiding under the closet. The chief architect is Chief Justice John Roberts. It is he who has been an enemy of voting rights and racial equality from his very first job out of law school, which was to oppose the 1982 amendments to the Voting Rights Act. It is John Roberts who authored Shelby County v Holder in 2013 which eviscerated section 5 of Voting Rights Act which is basically why we are here right now, it is John Roberts who authored Rucho in 2020 which swung wide the doors towards gerrymandering, and it is John Roberts who provided the crucial 5th vote in last year’s Brnovich decision which eviscerated section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. This is all being done by Federalist Society conservatives that have been put on the Supreme Court, and until we stop them, until we do something about the court–you want to pass your Freedom to Vote Act, I think that’s a great bill, we should pass it, I think we should have passed HR1, but always remember that John Roberts and his conservative cronies are waiting at the Supreme Court level to strike down whatever laws we put forward. As long as you let Republicans control the Supreme Court, you cannot have a fair and equal just society.”

It’s worth pointing out here too, that Elie Mystal is not only decrying Chief Justice Roberts’ questionable history on voting rights, but crucially, also making the point that minorities are doomed going forward, with him at the helm of the Supreme Court. This naturally raises the question as to whether Chief Justice Roberts is the right person to lead the high court.

Bottom line folks, these are questions that the mainstream media needs to take up with Chief Justice Roberts. At a time when voting rights are a red hot topic, and minorities are increasingly concerned about Republicans infringing upon their right to vote, the public deserves to know whether the Roberts Supreme Court will be a neutral arbiter in the fight for voting rights, as it should be.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Sen Cassidy Says SCOTUS Decision Gutting Voting Rights Act Justifies Restrictive State Election Laws

$upport via Cash App

Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) appeared on CNN’s State of The Union show (01/16/22) to put forward the Republican position on the push for a federal voting rights legislation(John Lewis Voting Rights Act), and also discuss the related question as to whether the U.S. Senate should change its filibuster rules to allow for the passage of the said voting rights law via a simple majority vote. When asked by host Jake Tapper why Republicans are now opposed to keeping key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act(VRA) intact, when as recently as a decade ago they were all for it, Sen Cassidy gave a strange response which appeared to suggest that because the Roberts Supreme Court gutted key provisions of the VRA in Shelby County v Holder(2013), there is no need to be concerned about discriminatory state election laws–that this is not 1965 anymore, things have changed.

Yours Truly, and I suspect a lot of other viewers too, found Senator Cassidy’s Response quite strange because while liberals agree that this is not 1965, and that progress has been made on the civil rights front, we need to restore key aspects of the 1965 Voting Rights Act because Trump’s GOP is taking us back to 1965. In other words, Senator Cassidy, and by extension the Roberts Supreme Court, are totally wrong in their assessment that simply because this is not 1965, Republican states are no longer capable of crafting discriminatory election laws. The facts on the ground clearly show that after the 2020 election, relying on former President Trump’s “big lie“, many Republican-controlled states have hurriedly enacted election laws that reasonable people agree, disenfranchise voters of color.

Senator Cassidy specifically said on CNNSOTU(video @ 2:20 onwards): “The Supreme Court decided[paused for effect], the Supreme Court decided that the conditions in 1965 are different than the conditions now. Imagine that. We’ve had an African-American elected President of the United States, we’ve had an African-American elected to the Vice Presidency, an African-American elected to the[U.S.]Senate in South Carolina. Now, if anyone can’t see that circumstances have changed, they’re just not believing their lying eye…There’s more to do, absolutely, we need safeguards, but to argue we are still the same as we were in 1965 is to deny facts that are clearly before us.”

There’s no other way any reasonable person presented with Senator Cassidy’s response(including his pause for effect), would arrive at any other conclusion other than, because the Roberts Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013 citing changed conditions, the voter suppression laws currently popping up in red states are justified. Think about that, the new Republican rationale for voter suppression, as articulated by Senator Cassidy, is that it’s not a big deal because if it was, the Roberts Supreme Court would never have gutted key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act–a sad state of affairs indeed.

Bottom line folks, Dems must use every tool at their disposal to get holdout Senators Kyrsten Sinema(D-AZ) and Joe Manchin(D-WV) to agree to a filibuster carveout for a federal voting rights legislation before the 2022 midterms because if they don’t, all the gains we’ve witnessed thus far as a result of the 1965 Voting Rights Act will be lost, and the Roberts Supreme Court will not lift a finger to assist. Simply put, it’s now or never for a federal voting rights law that restores key provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Ingraham-Ted Cruz SCOTUS Ultimatum: Strike Down Roe v Wade Or Face Limited Jurisdiction

$upport via Cash App

Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX) appeared on Fox News’ Ingraham Angle show (12/1/21) to discuss the Mississippi abortion law currently playing out at the United States Supreme Court. Conservatives consider this Mississippi law their best shot at dealing a fatal blow to the 1973 Roe v Wade decision which legalized abortion, given the fact that they now enjoy a 6-3 advantage on the high court. What caught Yours Truly’s attention from the interview however, was the very direct way(not subtle any more) both Senator Cruz and host Laura Ingraham, a very influential Republican in her own right, expect, even demand that the conservative Supreme Court justices toe the conservative ideological line. As a matter of fact, Ingraham and Senator Cruz went as far as laying an ultimatum to the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court: Strike down Roe v Wade or suffer the consequences of a limited jurisdiction court.

During the interview, as Senator Cruz was going on and on about why he thought the conservative Supreme Court would uphold the Mississippi abortion law, host Laura Ingraham interjected: “Senator if we have six Republican appointees on this court, after all the money that’s been raised, the Federalist Society, all these big fat cat dinners, I’m sorry, I’m pissed about this. If this court, with six justices cannot do the right thing here, the constitutional thing, then I think it’s time to do what Robert Bork said we should do, which is to circumscribe the jurisdiction of this court, and they want to blow it up, then that’s the way to change things finally because this can’t stand. This is insane.”

A concurring Senator Cruz responded: “I would do that in a heartbeat. As you know, the constitution gives Congress the authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the court, I think we should do that…”

There’s no other way any reasonable person would interpret Senator Cruz’s interaction with Fox News host Laura Ingraham other than Republicans have for decades, organized and raised large sums of money through the Federalist Society and others, to put like-minded justices on the United States Supreme Court, for the express purpose of overturning Roe v Wade, and for the high court to generally act as a rubber stamp for other Republican Party/conservative ideals. What Senator Cruz and Ingraham are expressly conveying to the six conservative justices on the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty clear, and that is, they better toe the Republican Party line by striking down Roe v Wade, or else suffer the consequences of a limited jurisdiction Supreme Court–have their powers reduced.

This direct threat Senator Cruz and Ingraham leveled at the conservative justices of the U.S. Supreme Court confirms what liberals have argued all along, and that is, the U.S. Supreme Court as is currently constituted, six conservatives and three liberals, is for all intents and purposes, a political court. This is especially so when one considers the egregious conduct of then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell(R-KY), who robbed President Obama of an opportunity to fill the late Justice Scalia’s seat using the bogus “election year” rationale. Sen McConnell then turned around and abandoned his “election year” rationale in late 2020, to rush through the confirmation of Trump’s nominee Amy Coney Barrett to replace the late Justice Ginsburg. Simply put, the conservative Roberts Supreme Court has become a political body, whether or not the justices want to acknowledge that fact.

Bottom line folks, this ultimatum by Senator Cruz and Ingraham should put to rest this myth that the 6-3 Roberts Supreme Court is some apolitical body, only interested in deciding cases on their legal merits. Republicans have fought for decades, and have succeeded in installing justices they are sure, will tow the GOP line. Now they expect/are demanding results, beginning with Roe v Wade. The only question remaining should be how we free the U.S. Supreme Court from it’s GOP captors, and revert it back to it’s proper realm, as the premier legal institution in America. One possible solution would be to expand the court.

For those of you very happy with @Emolclause’s activism don’t shy away from the “tip jar” below on your way out. You may also Cash App

You may reach the author via email at administrator@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com