| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
 Posted: Wed May 24, 2023 10:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/john-eastman-asks-supreme-court-to-wipe-away-ruling-that-said-evidence-showed-that-he-and-trump-may-have-been-plotting-a-crime/ar-AA1bEjvV?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=84f6552aa40c48b8bf94a547cd4dd840&ei=9
John Eastman asks Supreme Court to wipe away ruling that said evidence showed that he and Trump may have been plotting a crime
| Quote: | Former Donald Trump lawyer John Eastman has asked the Supreme Court to reverse lower court rulings that allowed for the now-defunct House January 6 committee to access emails he sought to shield under attorney-client privilege.
The committee obtained the handful of emails questions after a federal judge, in a notable March 2022 ruling, concluded that the emails fell under the so-called “crime-fraud” exemption to the privilege because the emails showed that Trump and Eastman may have been plotting a crime in their efforts to disrupt Congress’ January 6, 2021, election certification vote.
“Based on the evidence, the Court finds it more likely than not that President Trump corruptly attempted to obstruct the Joint Session of Congress on January 6, 2021,” Judge David Carter wrote at the time.
Eastman, when he was Trump’s attorney during the 2020 election, spearheaded efforts to convince Vice President Mike Pence to delay Congress’ counting of the Electoral College votes on January 6. Pence ultimately resisted the pressure from Trump and his allies to interrupt the congressional ceremony.
“The illegality of the plan was obvious,” Carter added. “Our nation was founded on the peaceful transition of power, epitomized by George Washington laying down his sword to make way for democratic elections. Ignoring this history, President Trump vigorously campaigned for the Vice President to single-handedly determine the results of the 2020 election … Every American – and certainly the President of the United States – knows that in a democracy, leaders are elected, not installed.”
In Eastman’s new petition with the Supreme Court, which was initially filed in late April but only publicly posted on the high court’s online docket this week, Eastman argues that Carter’s ruling “created a stigma for both Petitioner and his client, the former President of the United States and current candidate for the presidency.”
Eastman is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the ruling, even though the case became moot when the emails were handed over to the committee and then inadvertently made public with a live link that was left unredacted in a court filing submitted by the committee’s lawyers.
“Respondent committee’s action of accessing disputed documents while a motion to stay was pending, and then publishing in a public filing a live link to the confidential documents that were the subject of the appeal, deprived Petitioner of the opportunity to show that the ‘crime-fraud’ conclusions of the District Court were clearly erroneous, thus clearing his name and that of his former client, former President Trump,” the petition said.
Eastman is a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas has been scrutinized for his participation in cases involving the January 6 committee’s investigation, after it was revealed that Thomas’s wife was in communication with key players to the election reversal schemes, including Eastman.
During an interview with the House January 6 committee last year, Ginni Thomas said she did not speak to her husband about her post-2020 election political work. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
https://www.rawstory.com/allen-v-milligan/
Supreme Court upholds Voting Rights Act — and might have helped doom Republicans in 2024
| Quote: | The Supreme Court stunned political observers on Thursday in the closely watched Allen v. Milligan case, ruling that Alabama likely violated the Voting Rights Act's prohibition on racial gerrymandering when it drew a map that packs most of the state's Black voters into a single congressional district — and the decision could make it harder for Republicans to hold the House of Representatives in 2024.
The ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by all three liberal members of the court along with Justice Brett Kavanaugh, was a surprise to court watchers, who had expected the Court to weaken the Voting Rights Act protections and find Alabama's map permissible.
Roberts was previously involved in several decisions weakening voting rights and representation, including striking down the requirement for preclearance of election law changes for Southern states in 2013, and prohibiting federal courts from policing partisan gerrymandering in 2019.
The decision means that it is likely Alabama will have to redraw its congressional districts to create a second majority-Black district, pending further litigation in lower courts.
It could also potentially affect other states that face similar litigation arguing they improperly minimized Black representation in their districts, like Louisiana and South Carolina. Lower courts have both ruled those maps unconstitutional; the Supreme Court put the Louisiana decision on hold, and has agreed to review South Carolina's map.
Redrawing congressional districts in Southern states to increase Black voting power would almost certainly have the added effect of electing more Democratic representatives to these states, experts say. That would put in jeopardy the slim, five-seat majority Republicans won in the 2022 midterm elections. |
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/justice-kavanaugh-switches-sides-to-throw-out-racially-gerrymandered-map-in-alabama-just-a-year-after-he-allowed-the-maps-to-stand-for-the-2022-elections/ar-AA1cik6D?
Justice Kavanaugh switches sides to throw out racially gerrymandered map in Alabama, just a year after he allowed the maps to stand for the 2022 elections
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 15, 2023 11:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
In this one I find a point i have made before when posting on another forum the largest in a former red state now purple but all madia owned by ultra partisan right wingers, that paper had a lot of ultra right wing gun finatics posting. One poster who worked for the RNC as a statistician who when I joined the few liberals on that forum told me not to argue math with him, well I did and beat the piss out of him where he would stay away from numbers because I was never proven wrong and proved him wrong severely. He may have had his PhD or masters in stats, but he used it incorrectly vs an Engineer who was above 1% in math. Anyway this article/ruling also proves me right.
He claimed he is not a racist because he adopted a black child. I made a point to him he had no answer to and basically he quit posting. I told him should a member of the KKK be allowed to adopt a blacks child? Because this member is going to teach this black child to hate his race and in essence weaponize him against his race if he can get him into politics. Again while he was about the most reasonable right wingers i have ever encountered on a forum and respectable 99.9% of the time, I disagree with a right winger raising a black child. In actuality if he would ever run for office if I was not a big fan of the dem I would have voted for him. But I still do not believe he should adopt a black child.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/15/us/supreme-court-native-american-children-tribes.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20230615&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=cta®i_id=115919677&segment_id=135651&user_id=f730a3b9531f5b2c781c5ff7996dd05c
Supreme Court Upholds Native American Adoption Law
| Quote: | At issue in the case was whether a law aimed at keeping Native American adoptees within tribes is constitutional.
Give this article
265
Two people holding signs that read "Stop stealing Native kids/Protect ICWA." A third person stands nearby.
Demonstrators outside the Supreme Court in 2022, calling for it to protect the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.Credit...Mariam Zuhaib/Associated Press
By Abbie VanSickle
Reporting from Washington
June 15, 2023
Updated 10:51 a.m. ET
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a 1978 law aimed at keeping Native American adoptees with their tribes and traditions, handing a victory to tribes that had argued that a blow to the law would upend the basic principles that have allowed them to govern themselves.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion. She was joined by six other justices. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented.
Justice Barrett acknowledged the myriad thorny subjects raised in the challenge to the law, which pitted a white foster couple from Texas against five tribes and the Interior Department as they battled over the adoption of a Native American child.
“The issues are complicated,” she wrote. “But the bottom line is that we reject all of petitioners’ challenges to the statute, some on the merits and others for lack of standing.”
Under federal law, preference is given to Native families, a policy that the couple said violated equal protection principles and discriminated against Native children and non-Native families who wanted to adopt them because it hinges on placement based on race.
The tribes have said that they are political entities, not racial groups, and that doing away with that distinction, which underpins tribal rights, could imperil nearly every aspect of Indian law and policy, including measures that govern access to land, water and gambling.
More U.S. Supreme Court Decisions and Developments
Identity Theft: The justices rejected the government’s interpretation of a 2004 law that adds two years of prison time for certain felonies if they involve misusing another person’s identification.
Dog Toy Case: The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect a chew toy for dogs that resembles a bottle of Jack Daniel’s from a lawsuit claiming trademark infringement.
Financial Disclosures: Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito delayed releasing their annual financial disclosure forms. For Thomas, the delay comes after recent revelations cast scrutiny on his travel, gifts and real estate dealings with a conservative billionaire donor.
The 1978 legislation, the Indian Child Welfare Act, was meant to address the legacy of abuses of Native American children, hundreds of thousands of whom had been separated from their tribes to be raised by families with no connection to their culture.
Typically, when it comes to a child’s welfare, a judge is charged with determining the best interest of the child. Under the act, however, Native American children are subject to different rules, in part to safeguard their tribal ties.
The law lays out priorities for adoption before a child can be placed with a non-Native family. Children should first be in the care of a member of their extended family. If that is not possible, then priority would move to a member of their tribe; failing that, children should go to “other Indian families.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 21, 2023 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/justice-alito-accepted-alaska-resort-vacation-from-gop-donors-report-says/ar-AA1cR85f?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=22243b3c82ca43bdfebb1f02d55a4af9&ei=28
Justice Alito accepted Alaska resort vacation from GOP donors, report says
| Quote: | WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito accepted a 2008 trip to a luxury fishing lodge in Alaska from two wealthy Republican donors, one of whom repeatedly had interests before the court, and he did not disclose the trips on his financial disclosure for that year, ProPublica reports.
A story published Wednesday by the nonprofit investigative journalism organization states that in July 2008 Alito flew to a remote corner of Alaska aboard the private plane of businessman and Republican donor, Paul Singer. A hedge fund founded by the billionaire has brought roughly a dozen cases before the court since then, ProPublica reported. Alito did not recuse himself from participating in any of those cases.
Alito's three-day stay at the King Salmon Lodge was paid for by another wealthy donor, Robin Arkley II, the owner of a mortgage company then based in California. Leonard Leo, then a leader of the conservative legal group The Federalist Society, helped make arrangements for the trip, including securing a spot for Alito aboard Singer's jet, which would have cost Alito at least $100,000 if he chartered the jet himself, ProPublica reported.
Lenovo Thinkpad Compact Usb Keyboard With Trackpoint - Us English
Lenovo Thinkpad Compact Usb Keyboard With Trackpoint - Us English
Ad
eBay
Supreme Court justices, like other federal judges, are required to file annual financial disclosure reports, w hich ask them to list gifts they have received. However, the high court is not subject to a binding code of conduct that applies to lower court judges, giving individual justices latitude to write and enforce their own rules.
Alito vigorously disputed the findings in a Wall Street Journal opinion article released before ProPublica published its story, stating he faced no obligation to disclose the details of the trip or recuse himself from cases involving Singer's hedge fund.
“My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups,” Alito wrote. “On no occasion have we discussed the activities of his businesses, and we have never talked about any case or issue before the Court."
“As for the flight, Mr. Singer and others had already made arrangements to fly to Alaska when I was invited shortly before the event, and I was asked whether I would like to fly there in a seat that, as far as I am aware, would have otherwise been vacant. It was my understanding that this would not impose any extra cost on Mr. Singer,” Alito wrote.
The revelation about Alito's acceptance of the trip comes as the court is facing heightened scrutiny over issues of ethics, including the justices' obligation to disclose the details of expense-paid travels. That's led Democrats in Congress to call for legislation that would impose binding ethics rules on the court.
ProPublica previously reported that Justice Clarence Thomas accepted decades of undisclosed trips from a longtime friend, Republican megadonor Harlan Crow, that included stays at Crow's private resort, flights aboard his jet, and a vacation aboard Crow's yacht in Indonesia. Crow also purchased property from Thomas and paid private school tuition for a Thomas nephew whom the justice helped raise.
Since the passage of a Watergate-era law, the justices are supposed to report gifts they receive. But both Thomas and Alito have argued that a “personal hospitality” provision in the law exempts them.
In March, the federal judiciary increased disclosure requirements for all judges, including the high court justices, although overnight stays at personal vacation homes owned by friends remain exempt from disclosure.
The lodge where Alito stayed often drew celebrities and wealthy businessmen, and typically charged guests $1,000 a night.
A picture from the trip published by ProPublica shows Alito in hip waders with a fishing guide, posing with a massive king salmon. On another day, the group flew aboard a bush plane to a waterfall in Katmai National Park, where bears snatch salmon from a waterfall.
At night, the group dined on king crab legs or Kobe beef. One member of the group boasted that the wine they were drinking cost $1,000 a bottle, one of the lodge’s fishing guides told ProPublica.
But Alito wrote that the accommodations were far less opulent, calling the lodge “comfortable but rustic."
“I cannot recall whether the group at the lodge, about 20 people, was served wine, but if there was wine it was certainly not wine that costs $1,000,” he wrote. |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2023 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
wow Thomas was marching with Black panther people till he was against them. watch the video.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/investigation-finds-clarence-thomas-accepted-more-undisclosed-gifts-from-wealthy-friends-through-elite-association/ar-AA1dDHaL?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=0a958118a18b4a8ca9c2ecfde026e312&ei=8
Investigation finds Clarence Thomas accepted more undisclosed gifts from wealthy friends through elite association
| Quote: |
ANew York Times investigation revealed that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was brought access to the wealthy through relationships he built with members of the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans.
The Times reported that just months after Thomas joined the bench in 1991, he was welcomed into the Horatio Alger Association, a nonprofit scholarship organization, where he forged relationships with a select group of largely wealthy conservatives. This organization granted him access to wealthy friends who gifted Thomas with vacation retreats and V.I.P. tickets to sporting events, as well as invited him to parties, according to The Times.
The Times’s investigation discovered that Thomas received benefits from the members of the association and large donors to conservative causes. Among many of the contacts he made through the group was David Sokol, an investor and former executive at Berkshire Hathaway, who hosted Thomas and his wife Ginny at their ranch in Montana and property in Florida.
The investigation said that Thomas did not disclose many of the gifts and trips over the last two decades reported by the Times. Thomas used to report the personal gifts and travel benefits he received, but the Times reported that after a 2004 investigation by The Los Angeles Times came out about his disclosures, he largely stopped disclosing them.
The Times noted that Sokol, along with other members of the association, also funded the marketing for an HBO film about Anita Hill’s allegations of sexual harassment brought against Thomas. Thomas has also been a speaker at the Horatio Alger Association’s annual inaugural reception and ceremony, which he has hosted at the Supreme Court, according to the investigation.
The Times noted that Thomas declined to respond to detailed questions.
This reporting comes as Thomas has faced criticism over a ProPublica report that revealed Thomas received multiple luxury trips from GOP megadonor Harlan Crow without reporting them on financial disclosure forms. A separate report by ProPublica later found that Thomas also failed to disclose a real estate deal he made with Crow in 2014.
Thomas previously said he was “advised” that he did not need to disclose the luxury trips because they came from the “personal hospitality” of a “close, personal” friend.
New regulations came out earlier this year that clarified that all federal justices, including the Supreme Court justices, are required to disclose gifts and free stays at commercial properties. However, there is an exception for for food, lodging, or entertainment received as “personal hospitality,” which are certain gifts of a nonbusiness nature.
The Hill has reached out to the Supreme Court for comment.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill. |
here is video of his background using affirmative action. Inspired by the black panther
hhttps://youtu.be/aaGbP6hJxV8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 25, 2023 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They need to charge her, can you imagine if Hillary did this when bill was president. we ya they appointed a special council to investigate her and bill on her land deal that was before he was president and she lost 70k on the deal.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ginni-thomas-may-have-crossed-the-line-into-criminality-with-fake-electors-plot-former-federal-prosecutor/ar-AA1ekkUk?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=7cadefa7ddc342a1a8e30cc650967692&ei=17
Ginni Thomas 'may have crossed the line' into criminality with fake electors plot: former federal prosecutor
| Quote: |
Right-wing activist Ginni Thomas has come under fresh scrutiny after the Michigan State Attorney General's Office announced criminal charges against the 16 fake electors in the state who signed official documents falsely declaring former President Donald Trump the winner of the 2020 election.
Newsweek's Ewan Palmer this week spoke with Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, who said that Thomas' efforts to lobby on behalf of the fake electors scheme could lead to her being investigated for potentially criminal behavior.
"Her lawyer has publicly said that Thomas simply signed a pre-written letter, but there is reportedly evidence that she played a larger role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election," Rahmani said. "If so, Ginni Thomas may have crossed the line of political advocacy or aggressive legal strategy to criminal conduct."
Palmer goes on to note Thomas' contacts with former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows and with former Trump lawyer John Eastman, the author of the infamous so-called "coup memo" that encouraged then-Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to accept certified election results.
Michigan-based attorney Jamie White argued that Thomas' actions deserve scrutiny, despite the fact that the House Select Committee investigating Trump's attempts to illegally remain in power did not recommend any criminal charges against her.
"Ginni Thomas' pattern of inappropriate involvement is mind-boggling," he argued. "For a Supreme Court justice's wife to be texting with the chief of staff who was promulgating an insurrection against the country is beyond remarkable." |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 26, 2023 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/supreme-court-may-have-handed-jack-smith-new-tool-against-trump-lawyers/ar-AA1elUDT?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=a6de4f3bfe5743e3d856b074aab5584c&ei=14
Supreme Court May Have Handed Jack Smith New Tool Against Trump: Lawyers
| Quote: |
ASupreme Court ruling from June may have handed Special Counsel Jack Smith a new tool in his investigation of Donald Trump, according to legal scholars Laurence Tribe and Dennis Aftergut.
Smith and the Department of Justice (DOJ) are reportedly reaching their endgame in the federal criminal investigation into former President Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election. According to Trump himself, he was recently served a "target letter" in relation to the case, a move that frequently comes shortly before an individual is hit with criminal charges.
Writing in a column for Slate on Tuesday, Tribe and Aftergut argued that a ruling made by the Supreme Court is highly applicable to Trump's case and could aid Smith in bringing a case against him. On June 27, the court issued a ruling in Counterman v. Colorado, a case concerning an individual who sent thousands of threatening messages to Denver-based singer-songwriter, Coles Whalen. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that "a mental state of recklessness" when making threats of violence is sufficient for them to count as "true threats," which means that they are not covered under the First Amendment's free speech protections.
These Shoes Are The Most Comfortable Casual Shoes Of 2023.
These Shoes Are The Most Comfortable Casual Shoes Of 2023.
Ad
betterfitshoe
"That shoe fits Trump like custom footwear measured and made in Milan," Tribe and Aftergut wrote.
The column noted that one of the three potential charges reportedly referenced in Trump's target letter was "conspir[ing] to injure, threaten, or intimidate a person ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States or because of his or her having exercised such a right." This, they argued, is in reference to a tweet made by Trump on January 6, 2021, before the Capitol riots began, accusing his Vice President Mike Pence of not having "the courage" to overturn the election results for him.
"Trump plainly had in mind one or more of three aims," the legal scholars continued. "First, for a final desperate time, to directly intimidate and threaten Pence to bend to Trump's will by using the mob in the Capitol. Second, to inflame the insurrectionists so they would threaten or intimidate Pence to surrender his right as presiding officer to have the votes lawfully counted." |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2023 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/how-a-2011-sam-alito-opinion-could-doom-trump-in-dc-election-fraud-case/ar-AA1fTnyA?cvid=8a3b2e92b7494b20c478425fc45fb57c&ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&ei=8
How a 2011 Sam Alito opinion could doom Trump in DC election fraud case
| Quote: |
Former President Donald Trump's attorneys have signaled that they will defend him by claiming that he could not have been trying to defraud the United States in the wake of the 2020 election because he sincerely believed he won.
However, a Supreme Court opinion authored in 2011 by conservative Justice Samuel Alito could knock this defense flat on its face.
In a legal analysis published by The New York Times on Monday, New York University Law School professor Burt Neuborne walks through how the 2011 opinion affirmed that proving willful blindness to the falsity of one's words and actions is legally equivalent to proving someone's consciousness of guilt.
In one particular relevant passage in the ruling, Alito argued that "many criminal statutes require proof that a defendant acted knowingly or willfully, and courts applying the doctrine of willful blindness hold that defendants cannot escape the reach of these statutes by deliberately shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances."
As for how this would apply to Trump, Neuborne argued that testimony from multiple former Trump administration officials and campaign officials provides a track record to show that Trump had been told again and again that he had legitimately lost the 2020 election.
Neuborne concludes that "while this argument is not a slam dunk, there’s an excellent chance that 12 jurors will find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Trump hid from the truth by adopting willful blindness." |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
real-human
Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 14881
Location: on earth
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2023 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
great point...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/indicted-ex-trump-lawyer-among-those-who-signed-clarence-thomas-integrity-pledge/ar-AA1fXiPH?ocid=winp2fptaskbarhover&cvid=db82ace9a4424bd28be35028fb5ab709&ei=16
Indicted ex-Trump lawyer among those who signed Clarence Thomas integrity pledge
| Quote: |
Clarence Thomas has faced criticism for alleged improprieties related to vacations and other gifts he's received, but his former clerks are here to set the record straight with a letter pledging that his integrity is "unimpeachable." One of those former clerks is indicted former Trump lawyer John Eastman.
This list of 112 signatories from former Supreme Court clerks obtained exclusively by Fox News also includes John Wood, a former U.S. attorney who served as the House Jan. 6 select committee’s senior investigative counsel.
"As his law clerks, we offer this response. Different paths led us to our year with Justice Thomas, and we have followed different paths since. But along the way, we all saw with our own eyes the same thing: His integrity is unimpeachable," the letter reads.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?
"And his independence is unshakable, deeply rooted seven decades ago as that young child who walked through the door of his grandparents’ house for a life forever changed."
The letter drew swift blowback.
“This is powerful evidence of how broken the clerking system is. Clerks' careers are tied to their Justices, so they resort to platitudes to defend the indefensible. Bonus points for including Eastman and (John) Yoo,” Texas A&M law professor Milan Markovic said.
One user on X wrote, "I mean, currently-indicted-in-Georgia former Trump lawyer, John Eastman, used to clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas. But sure, let's hear what the rest of his former clerks have to say about Thomas’ integrity." |
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
