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

Why Won’t Dems Seek Fast-Tracked SCOTUS Ruling On Trump’s Tax Returns?

A federal appeals court today dismissed Trump’s appeal holding that the district court ruling ordering Trump to release his tax returns to the Manhattan DA was proper–essentially that Trump wasn’t immune from New York state prosecution. Moments after that ruling, one of Trump’s lawyers Jay Sekulow said they are going to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is very well known however that the arguments Trump’s lawyers are advancing in federal court to keep his tax returns hidden are frivolous and that the whole reason for their court challenges is delay.

The question then becomes, why haven’t Democrats ever filed a motion with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to intervene in the tax return and quite frankly other obstruction of congress cases that are at this juncture throwing the country into a constitutional crisis. Yours Truly broached this subject in an earlier tweet.

The U.S. Supreme court did indeed fast-track one of Trump’s immigration cases, handing down a decision even before the appellate courts could decide on the case. If it was good for the Roberts Supreme Court to honor Trump’s fast-track motion and short circuit his case, then why can’t the Roberts Supreme Court do the same for the co-equal U.S. Congress especially where, as here, there appears to be a constitutional crisis? Why won’t the U.S. Supreme Court do what’s best for the country and just hand down rulings on Trump’s tax returns, executive priviledge, whether a president can be criminally prosecuted, and many other cases that confront the country at this moment thus saving the country from Trump’s abuse of the court process for delay? Doesn’t the threat of a constitutional crisis far exceed the “extraordinary circumstances” bar the U.S. Supreme Court sets before it takes up extraordinary writ petitions?

Except from Scotusblog post

Reasonable people will agree that Trump is not mounting these court challenges because he has meritorious legal arguments that will prevail in federal court. His only reason for these challenges is delay. The question for the Roberts Supreme Court therefore becomes whether they are comfortable being viewed by the public as being complicit in Trump’s stalling tactics by standing idly by as the country teeters into a constitutional crisis.

Bottom line folks, the Trump administration is like no other U.S. administration we have witnessed before. We are witnessing things right before our very eyes we’d never have thought possible in the United States. Equally troubling, the guard rails we thought we had in place to address some of these eventualities, especially the U.S. Senate, appear to have either fallen by the wayside or are actively helping Trump in his lawlessness. The only question remaining is whether the Roberts Supreme Court will step in and hand down the much needed legal decisions that are within its power to do, or like the U.S. Senate, they will just sit idly by and either watch or abet Trump’s lawlessness.

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

Gillibrand Slams McConnell For Harming SCOTUS “Almost Irreparably”

At a town hall in New Hampshire, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand blasted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying by blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland, McConnell had harmed the U.S. Supreme Court “almost irreparably”

Senator Gillibrand addressed a whole host of issues at the New Hampshire town hall (which Yours Truly strongly recommends that any Democrat watch) most notably her long record in Congress for fighting corruption/getting money out of politics. However it was her answer as to how she would handle the U.S. Supreme Court if elected President that caught Yours Truly’s attention the most.

When asked by the town hall moderator whether she would be in favor of term limits for federal Supreme Court justices, Sen Gillibrand emphatically said “Yes” adding;“I think what has happened by this President[Trump] and Mitch McConnell is the extreme politicization of the court. I’ve never seen it worse than it is today and the fact that Mitch McConnell denied the vote and the hearing on Merrick Garland is outrageous and I don’t think we’ve recovered from it….It was a stolen justice….. I think they[Trump and McConnell] have harmed our courts almost irreparably.”

It cannot be left unsaid that even though Senator Gillibrand came into the 2020 Dem presidential nomination contest as one of the top contenders, her campaign has not lived up to its billing. As a matter of fact most Democrats will agree that she has seriously under-performed especially given the fact that she almost failed to make the cut for the recent debate. There is a divergence of opinions among cable TV pundits as to why Sen Gillibrand’s campaign has not caught fire yet. As for Yours Truly, the answer to that is very simple. For Sen Gillibrand to become a top-tier presidential candidate, her campaign should tone down a little on the uber-feminist message and instead focus on her real and provable congressional record of fighting corruption in Washington. Simply put, if Senator Gillibrand becomes the anti-corruption candidate— going after lobbyists, lamenting the swamp, and even going after Trump’s elusive tax returns–the future is bright for her presidential campaign.

Bottom line, even though she gets very little credit from grassroots Democrats (especially post-Al Franken), Sen Gillibrand has been a Dem stalwart with a stellar congressional record to prove it. Yours Truly strongly believes that in the coming months, especially if she keeps touting her anti-corruption record, she will become a top-tier presidential candidate. And while you are at it Sen Gillibrand, keep slamming Mitch McConnell over his Supreme Court chicanery. McConnell bashing is an absolute win win among grassroots Democrats.

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

Can A Sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Be Indicted?

As Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections heats up and more and more evidence continues to pop up indicating that then presidential candidate Trump was either fully aware of or an active participant in the interference, legal eagles are grappling with the question as to whether a sitting U.S. President can be indicted.

As it currently stands, according to many of the legal eagle pundits on cable TV, the answer to that question is no. There is apparently a Department of Justice(DOJ) policy that advises against indicting a sitting president. The pundits are quick to point out however that this is only a directive that can be changed at any time(not set in stone). Respected legal scholars like Harvard University’s Lawrence Tribe have argued against this DOJ directive saying nothing in the U.S. constitution prohibits a sitting president from being indicted if he is found to have committed crimes.

Strangely missing from the “to indict or not to indict” debate however is the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice can be indicted. We are of course talking about recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh who as you will remember was the subject of numerous serious judicial complaints. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts referred the judicial complaints to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals for resolution.

A judicial council at the 10th Circuit Court recently dismissed all the complaints against Kavanaugh concluding that even though the allegations were serious, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints because Kavanaugh was no longer a federal appeals judge and thus not subject to the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act that deals with disciplining federal district court judges, magistrates and circuit appellate justices. Essentially, because Kavanaugh had been elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act no longer applied to him.

It is very important to point out that among the serious accusations against Kavanaugh was that he lied multiple times to congress while under oath. Lying to congress as you know is a serious felony, especially in Kavanaugh’s case given the fact that (1) he did that as a federal judge who should know better and (2) he lied to congress on multiple occasions.

An excerpt from 12/18/2018 USA Today article

The logical question then becomes if Kavanaugh can be proven to have lied to congress under oath, a felony, can he be indicted? Is it possible to indict a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice or are they for all intents and purposes, above the law? Is there any case law that precludes such an eventuality? All these are serious questions that one would think the mainstream media would have posed to the myriad TV legal eagle pundits by now. Instead as it has now become customary, it is left to Yours Truly to ask the serious questions the mainstream media won’t ask, for which the public is desperately seeking answers to.

Bottom line with all the attention focused on whether Trump can be indicted, it is about time the mainstream media also started asking the equally important question as to whether a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, in this case Kavanaugh, can be indicted.

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

Will Dems Subpoena Justice Kennedy’s Son Over Deutsche Bank?

President Trump with Justice Anthony Kennedy(Retired)

In the days following the June 2018 announcement by Justice Anthony Kennedy that he was retiring from the Supreme Court, there was rampant speculation that his resignation was not entirely voluntary but rather that the Trump administration engineered/even forced him out for fear that the GOP may lose their U.S. Senate majority to the Democrats in the November 2018 elections. In essence, the Trump administration did not want Justice Kennedy to retire at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate because that would make it difficult for any Trump SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed.


Speculation that the Trump Admin forced out Justice Kennedy took a whole new turn after the New York Times did a bombshell piece revealing that Justice Kennedy’s son Justin Kennedy had been a longtime financier for Trump. Specifically, that Justin Kennedy was Trump’s financier at the troubled Deutsche Bank which has come under international scrutiny over allegations that it is the bank of choice for Russian money launderers

Justin Kennedy, the son of Retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy

Justin Kennedy was apparently the global head of real estate capital markets at Deutsche Bank which leaves absolutely no doubt that he would be the point man at Deutsche Bank for Trump’s vast real estate empire. Part of the bombshell NYT piece read;“During Mr. Kennedy’s tenure, Deutsche Bank became Mr. Trump’s most important lender, dispensing well over $1 billion in loans to him for the renovation and construction of skyscrapers in New York and Chicago at a time other mainstream banks were wary of doing business with him because of his troubled business history.” 

With Special Counsel Mueller increasingly zeroing in on Trump’s business ties to Russia and news that German authorities recently raided the troubled Deutsche Bank, the question now being raised is whether with their new found majority in the House, Democrats will subpoena Trump-related Deutsche Bank records and specifically whether they will call Justin Kennedy to testify about his financial dealings with Trump. Justin Kennedy’s testimony in Congress could also lay to rest the lingering speculation as to whether his dad was forced by the Trump administration to resign from the U.S. Supreme Court before the November 2018 elections.

Bottom line given the serious questions being raised about Deutsche Bank’s ties to President Trump and its troubling history as a conduit for Russian money laundering, it would be Congressional malpractice if House Democrats did not call Justin Kennedy to testify about his role at the troubled bank and specifically, find out what criteria Deutsche Bank used to justify loaning Trump so much money when other “mainstream” banks declined to do so. Was Russia the source of these loans to Trump?. Grassroots Democrats would also like to know whether Kavanaugh played any part in Justice Kennedy’s retirement–essentially engineering his own ascendancy to the U.S. Supreme 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 reach the author directly via email at author@grassrootsdempolitics.com or author@emolumentsclause.com

Chief Justice Roberts Says SCOTUS Is Independent. Is It?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell with C.J. John Roberts

In a rare public address Chief Justice Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court talked about the recent contentious Kavanaugh confirmation process and reiterated how important it is that the public views the High Court as independent. C.J. Roberts said regarding judicial independence, “Our role[Supreme Court] is very clear. We are to interpret the constitution and the laws of the United States and ensure that the political branches act within them. That job obviously requires independence from the political branches.”

The problem with that is the person at the center of the public’s disaffection with the Roberts Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has also recently spoken about the Roberts Court. Sen McConnell and by extension his GOP’s view of the Roberts Supreme Court is in stark contrast to what Chief Justice Roberts says. Specifically, there is no question that according to Sen McConnell and his GOP, they have fought hard to pack the Roberts Supreme Court with conservative judges for the express purpose of getting favorable decisions from the court..

Sen McConnell recently said at a press conference following Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. “If you want to have a long term impact, and obviously all of us would like to do that, the single most significant way to do it is judicial appointments and my party has not been in this position all that long. You can go back 100 years and only 20 of the last 100 years have Republicans had the Presidency, the House and Senate the same time, and so these opportunities have not come along that often for us and I do think it is the most consequential thing that I’ve been involved in in my time as leader.”

So what is a regular American looking at Chief Justice Roberts’ remarks about judicial independence and Senator McConnell’s partisan political remarks about judicial appointments supposed to think? Why would Sen McConnell and his GOP block President Obama’s rightful nominee Garland and then ram through Kavanaugh if the end result was to have an independent Supreme Court? Reasonable people would agree that if the Supreme Court was truly independent as Chief Justice Roberts argues, there would be more consensus in the senate confirmation process. In other words the fact that the senate confirmation fights have become so bitter is in itself proof of a partisan Roberts Supreme Court.


Bottom line as Yours Truly said in an earlier post, the Roberts Supreme Court has a serious credibility problem. It is sad to say it but most Americans are more inclined to believe Sen McConnell’s narrative over that of C.J. Roberts–that Republicans have made the Roberts Supreme Court a conservative court with the express intention of using the High Court to advance their Republican agenda–a partisan political court. Simply put, there is no way any reasonable person looking at the way Sen McConnell blocked Obama’s nominee Garland, rammed Kavanaugh through, and then gave a press conference bragging about his legacy of steering the court to the right, can ever conclude that the Roberts Supreme Court is somehow an independent court.

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




Roberts Supreme Court Helping GOP Disenfranchise Minority Voters

Conservatives on the Roberts Supreme Court

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow has for a long time covered stories about the GOP’s various efforts at minority voter suppression, the latest one being the effort by North Dakota Republicans to suppress the vote of Native Americans in the state who were key to Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp‘s win in 2012. According to Maddow, right after Sen Heitkamp’s win in 2012, North Dakota state GOP officials embarked on a scheme to suppress the vote of her key Native American voting base.

The GOP suppression scheme of choice was to require all Native Americans to present an ID with a street address in order to vote, something they knew many tribal IDs don’t have because they live in reservations. According to O.J. Semans, Executive Director of Four Directions, a Native American advocacy group, “The street addresses is very common maybe in cities but on reservations, street addresses literally do not exist.”

So you ask, “Well @Emolclause if Maddow has covered a lot of GOP voter suppression stories why is this North Dakota case special?” Here’s why. According to Maddow, a very troubling pattern is developing. Unlike in previous cases where such blatant GOP voter suppression tactics were being easily struck down in federal court, now it appears that the conservatives at the Roberts Supreme Court are increasingly affirming these shocking GOP voter suppression tactics–yeah you heard that right–the conservatives in the Roberts Supreme Court are helping the GOP cheat in elections.The conservative majority at the Roberts Supreme Court knows full well that imposing the street address requirement on Native American voters in North Dakota will suppress their vote but they still affirmed the challenged GOP state law–the height of injustice.


Sadly the injustice by the conservative majority at the Roberts Supreme Court doesn’t end there. Maddow recently did a story about how Texas GOP officials are trying to suppress the vote of students at the predominantly Black Prairie View A & M University which is located in predominantly White Whaler County(you’ll probably remember Whaler County due to Sandra Bland). At issue here is whether the Black PVAMU students should vote in Whaler county simply because they attend school there. According to Maddow a decades old Supreme Court precedent already settled this issue in the Black students’ favor but now Texas @GOP officials are bringing the issue back because of a recent Roberts Supreme Court decision.

Maddow’s guest Mike Siegel a Dem congressional candidate said, “This very late change to the voting status of the students is something that would not have been allowed under the previous version of the Voting Rights Act. Texas used to be in pre-clearance and this is something that because its an impediment to voting wouldn’t have been allowed but for that recent Supreme Court[Roberts] decision that invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act.”

Bottom line one is left wondering what the founding fathers would think of the Roberts Supreme Court which is now literally helping a major political party disenfranchise voters of color? It is already very hard for Americans to respect the Roberts Supreme Court which now features Kavanaugh given his very shady confirmation process. Now that on top of that the court is literally helping GOP to disenfranchise minority voters, only God knows what the future holds for the once hallowed High Court.

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




Sen Susan Collins’ Insult To Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

Fresh from perpetrating her “No Corroboration” fraud on Americans to get Justice Brett Kavanaugh confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sen Susan Collins(R-ME) showed up on CNN’s State of The Union to explain her highly suspicious YES vote. In her interview with CNN’s Dana Bash, Senator Collins essentially repeated the fraudulent “No Corroboration” theory she had previously laid out in her 45 minute nationally televised speech Friday. The CNN State of The Union segment is available here but the relevant clip is below.

She however brought up a new concept in her interview with Dana Bash which Yours Truly considers a total insult to Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and that is, that Dr. Ford was assaulted by “someone else”, not by Kavanaugh. So you ask. “But @Emolclause, how is that an insult to Dr. Ford?” Here’s why. We all remember very well that during her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee Dr. Ford said very clearly that she was 100% certain that it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her. More importantly when asked by Senator Patrick Leahy(D-VT) what her strongest memory was of the decades old incident, Dr Ford responded that it was the “uproarious” laughter by Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge that still torments her to this date—Yours Truly talked about this in a previous post.

To believe Sen Collins’ new stance that “someone else” attacked Dr Ford, you also have to believe that the “uproarious” laughter Dr Ford tearfully testified torments her to this day either never happened or Mark Judge was laughing with “someone else”—a total insult. Think about that folks, in order to justify her fraudulent “No Corroboration” theory, Sen Collins now says Dr. Ford is being delusional when she talks about the “uproarious” laughter that still torments her to this day.

You don’t have to take Yours Truly’s word for it regarding Sen Collins’ insult to Dr. Ford. Dem Senator Mazie Hirono said the same thing when she appeared on the same show with Dana Bash.


Its also very important to point out that Dana Bash strangely never asked Senator Collins about Kavanaugh’s other accusers. Surely CNN’s Dana Bash knows that Dr Ford was not Kavanaugh’s only accuser. If Sen Collins thought there was “No Corroboration” re Dr. Ford , what does she think about Debbie Ramirez’s allegations? One would think MSM’s Dana Bash would challenge Sen Collins’ “No Corroboration” theory with questions about Ramirez and other accusers for example, Were they questioned by the FBI? If not, how can she credibly characterize the FBI investigation as “thorough” or “comprehensive”? and so on….

A lot of people waking up to watch Sen Collins’ first TV interview after the highly controversial Supreme Court confirmation expected these kinds of questions from MSM’s Dana Bash but predictably, it turned out be yet another terrible disappointment by the hapless MSM, which essentially gave Sen Collins a platform to justify her fraudulent “No Corroboration” theory.

Bottom line Sen Collins’ new stance that ” someone else” attacked Dr Ford is an insult to Dr Ford and indeed all other women survivors of sexual assault across the nation. It would be helpful if on her next interview someone in the MSM asks her about Ramirez and other Kavanaugh accusers and whether the supplemental FBI probe included them. More importantly the MSM should ask Sen Collins how she concluded that the FBI inquiry was “thorough” and “comprehensive” when it clearly left out a lot of willing witnesses—the aforementioned “No Corroboration” fraud.

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