[ [link removed] ]Real Clear Politics headline - Raskin: Supreme Court Will Let January
6th Rioters Off, They've 'Intervened In The 2024 Presidential Campaign'

-----------------------------------------------------------

[ [link removed] ]Turn on images to see the Tweet.

Reps. Jamie Raskin and AOC just filed legislation to cap the value of
gifts Supreme Court justices are allowed to receive at $50, bringing the
justices in line with rules that govern members of Congress.

According to Raskin, "Billionaire sugar daddies with interests in Supreme
Court litigation have given Justice Clarence Thomas gifts likely totaling
more than $4.2 million, including a luxury trip to Bali, Indonesia, a stay
at the exclusive Bohemian Grove retreat in California, and a $267,230 loan
(later forgiven) to buy a luxury RV Motor Coach."

This bill comes one day after Raskin made news telling PCCC members and
reporters on a Zoom call that the Court is "acting in wholly inappropriate
and lawless, unethical ways in order to distort the workings of the
democratic electoral process....It's just a complete runaway court from an
ethics perspective." Raskin also predicted the Court will let January 6
insurrectionists off the hook.

Can you help build momentum for Jamie Raskin and AOC's bill to fight
Supreme Court corruption?

[ [link removed] ]Sign on here as a citizen cosponsor of Raskin and AOC's High Court Gift
Ban.

Then, [ [link removed] ]call Rep. Brendan Boyle's office and tell
him you support a $50 limit on gifts to
Supreme Court justices and encourage him to
sign on as a cosponsor of the bill. (It is fine to leave a message or
voicemail.)

If you missed our live event with Jamie Raskin, you can [ [link removed] ]watch the video
here. Share it with your friends on Facebook [ [link removed] ]here, on Twitter (X)
[ [link removed] ]here, and on Instagram [ [link removed] ]here. And, [ [link removed] ]chip in here if you value
events like this and want to see more of them.

Here are some highlights from the call, which also included legal experts
Joyce Vance (former U.S. Attorney, current professor at University of
Alabama School of Law) and Dahlia Lithwick (Slate, Amicus podcast), with a
special appearance from Lauren Windsor (Undercurrent) sharing her
behind-the-curtain thinking while recording Justice Samuel Alito admit his
political and religious intentions on the Court:

Jamie Raskin predicts Court will let Jan 6 insurrectionists off
hook: ([ [link removed] ]Watch here.)

"I suspect that the right wing majority on the Court is going to
dramatically narrow one of the key criminal statutes that's been used in
the prosecution of January 6 insurrectionists and rioters."

Raskin on Justices interfering in 2024 election and not caring about their
legacy: ([ [link removed] ]Watch here.)

"Other than Chief Justice Roberts, perhaps, I don't know that any of the
right wingers on the Court really care about their legacy. I mean, they're
basically acting like, you know, just MAGA Republicans on a town council
somewhere, and they are working to try to see that their team is going to
win. And, you know, they have already substantially, and let's hope not
irrevocably, intervened in the 2024 presidential campaign….In this
election, the Supreme Court plucking up from the DC Circuit a unanimous,
bipartisan, perfectly valid, air-tight analytically, decision on
presidential immunity, and then to hold it for month after month after
month in order to slow down the possibility of Jack Smith's prosecution of
Donald Trump. So you know, we're already looking at a legacy right now."

Raskin on Court being "wholly inappropriate and lawless…a mark of
shame." ([ [link removed] ]Watch here.)

The Court is "acting in wholly inappropriate and lawless unethical ways in
order to distort the workings of the democratic electoral process…that's a
mark of shame and stigma that I don't think they can easily escape.
They've been pursuing basically the MAGA platform. Donald Trump has been
bragging all over the country about how he built the Supreme Court that
overturned Roe versus Wade, and that is the same court that is also
holding up the possibility of justice against Donald Trump."

Raskin on Thomas and Alito brazenness and acting political: ([ [link removed] ]Watch
here.)

"I don't think there's been a Supreme Court justice as remotely brazen as
Justice Thomas in terms of his financial conflicts of interest. I mean, he
really views the Supreme Court as a money making enterprise and an
opportunity to get the billionaire sugar daddies to pay for everything.
And similarly, with Alito, I don't know that we've had, you know, a
Justice as overtly partisan political."

Raskin calls for binding ethics rules on the Supreme Court: ([ [link removed] ]Watch
here.)

"There is no binding ethics code on the Supreme Court, it is each person
being a judge in his or her own case…nobody can be a judge in his or her
own case. But that is exactly what operates for this Supreme Court. So we
apply the general federal ethics code to the Supreme Court and then figure
out a way to have review, perhaps by, an ethics panel of circuit court
justices. We've also advanced legislation to have an inspector general at
the Supreme Court, which would probably clean things up pretty quickly,
but right now, it's just a complete runaway court from an ethics
perspective, and the private ethical crises that have caught public
imagination so much are just a mirror of the public legitimacy crisis of
the Supreme Court."

Supreme Court expert Dahlia Lithwick of Slate pops the bubble on the
illusion that we have a so-called "moderate court" ([ [link removed] ]Watch here.)

"It is not a moderate institution. It had a couple of good minutes in the
70s. But I think we need to be very, very clear that the Court has been
captured and the Court is now performing the act of vote suppression in
order to continue to do things through the judicial branch that
[conservatives] couldn't do through the other branches."

Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance says of this Court, "The reality is that
they failed" to police themselves. ([ [link removed] ]Watch here.)

"The court has in some ways perpetuated this myth that only the court can
police itself. And look, the reality is that they failed, and it's time to
try something new...Congressman Raskin makes the point that is compelling
to me, which is that we have nine justices from an earlier point in time
when we had fewer circuits, and that there's some appropriate way to right
size the court for our modern circumstances."

Lauren Windsor, who got Alito on tape earlier this month, describes her
thinking while preparing for Samuel Alito’s psychology. ([ [link removed] ]Watch here.)

"I didn't think that I was going to be successful whatsoever, and I wasn't
in 2023 but I thought in 2024 give it another go. We'll see, given that he
is probably more aggrieved with the increased scrutiny on him from the
media that he might, you know, with the right goading, with the right sort
of ego stroking, be more forthcoming... When he started telling me there
were things that fundamentally couldn't be compromised, I was pretty
shocked. I mean, in my head, I wanted to push further to see, can I get
him to say more?"

[ [link removed] ]Sign on here as a citizen cosponsor of Jamie Raskin and AOC's High
Court Gift Ban to end gifts over $50 for Supreme Court justices.

Then, [ [link removed] ]call Rep. Brendan Boyle and tell
him you support a $50 limit on gifts to
Supreme Court justices and encourage him to
sign on as a cosponsor of the bill.

If you missed our live event with Jamie Raskin, you can [ [link removed] ]watch the
video here. Share it with your friends on Facebook [ [link removed] ]here, on Twitter
(X) [ [link removed] ]here, and on Instagram [ [link removed] ]here. And, [ [link removed] ]chip in here if you
value events like this and want to see more of them.

Thanks for being a bold progressive.

-- The PCCC Team

 

 

 


Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.Have you moved? Want to update your email address? Click below.

[link removed]

You can remove yourself from this mailing list at any time:

[link removed]