Donald Trump's SCOTUS must go...

SCOTUS' recent 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais basically takes away the voting rights of minorities, a block of voters traditionally voting for Democrats. It was, of course, down party lines, the kind of results we have seen recently from this gang of Trump worshippers. The six conservative justices have finally completely scuttled their ethics to attempt to pave the way for Republicans to win in 2026 and 2028. Prominent legal scholar Richard Hasen, a law professor at UCLA, said...

"the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais 'will go down in history as one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions of the last century.' The case gutted 'what remained" of the Voting Rights Act's protections for voters of color.' Hasen said the decision will not only increase racial gerrymandering, but also strip millions of voters of 'rudimentary fair representation' at all levels of government."

Hasen says you can blame it on Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito...

"who have shown persistent resistance to the idea of the United States as a multiracial democracy, and a brazen willingness to reject Congress’s judgment that fair representation for minority voters sometimes requires race-conscious legislation," Hasen wrote. "It gives the green light to further partisan gerrymandering. It protects Alito’s core constituency: aggrieved white Republican voters. It’s a disaster for American democracy."

In other words, they are paving the way for a future America where people of color have no voting rights. No, I'm wrong, not being able to vote means basically not having any rights at all. And this is just what the Republican Party wants. Hansen isn't finished. In an AlterNet article, he calls Samuel Alito a "coward" ...

"who is either lying to himself or the American public, after authoring what has been called the 'earthquake' decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which sharply erodes the Voting Rights Act."

Here's more on Alito...

Alito tells Roberts, 'We got 'em this time'

"Alito’s 'disastrous' majority opinion in Callais 'essentially gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act,' but he 'claims to have done no such thing. The question is 'why,' Hasen posits.

Hasen charges that Justice Alito was too 'afraid" to share his actual opinion, and so he found ways to “get away with overturning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act through technical minutiae rather than through a direct hit.”

"Section 2, passed in 1965, is the provision of the Voting Rights Act that protects minority voters from discriminatory voting laws and maps."

Hansen made this welcomed statement last Wednesday...

"that the Supreme Court just made reforming the institution an 'unavoidable' part of future political administrations."

BAM! I have been saying this since Donald Trump entered his second term and as a jaundiced SCOTUS began to throw everything Trump's way. The six conservatives on the high court are just as maniacal as dufus rump has become with both deteriorating at an astonishing rate of speed. 

These, folks, are the culprits

This decision is especially frightening for my state of Arizona with approximately 360,000 to over 480,000 Black residents, representing roughly 4.4% to 6.3% of the state's total population. And, a substantial and growing Hispanic population, estimated at over 2.3 million, constituting roughly 31% to 32% of the state's total population. Arizona ranks among the top states nationally for its share of Latino residents. The AZMirror says...

“They’ll [Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, or IRC] have more free rein to draw lines, regardless of the impact on racial minority groups’ opportunity to elect representatives of their own choice,” said Bo Dul, a former state election official and lawyer who specializes in election and political litigation at Coppersmith Brockelman in Phoenix.

Mother Jones reported, "The Roberts Court Shows Its True Partisan Colors," in an attempt to make "you think that its latest gerrymandering decision is a mere tweak to the legal rules governing political map drawing." But MJ adds, something that flies in the face of the 15th Amendment, which specifies "prohibition against racial discrimination in voting." And Mother Jones warns, Don’t be fooled...

"This is a counter-revolution. Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requires that people of color have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Wednesday’s decision effectively strikes down Section 2—at least what this Supreme Court had left of it—and takes the country back to the dark days when Black and brown voters in many states cast meaningless ballots, having been diluted and gerrymandered into powerlessness. In the decades since the Voting Rights Act, southern states have sent Black representatives to Congress, state legislatures, and local political bodies because this seminal civil rights law demanded that minority voters have an equal voice in the political process. Congress has repeatedly defended and continued these protections. On Wednesday, a court majority watered them right down to nothing.

"Nothing" is what the minorities get, and if the Republicans have their way this ideology will translate into anything the left wants or deserves. Democrats need to begin building their strength now for 2026 and 2028 and prepare to radically redesign SCOTUS.

John Roberts bails Trump out once again

 

Isn't it amazing how corrupt Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is right around the corner when an also corrupt Donald Trump needs to be rescued? Here's the headline from CNN: "Chief Justice John Roberts pauses order for Trump admin to pay $2 billion in foreign aid by midnight." Hre's the scenario...

"Chief Justice John Roberts on Wednesday paused a court-imposed midnight deadline that would have required the Trump administration to release $2 billion in frozen foreign aid, a goal that the government has claimed it is unable to meet.

"The emergency appeal marks the first time President Donald Trump’s efforts to drastically remake the federal government – including with deep cuts across government agencies – have reached the nation’s highest court. The case appears likely to put the justices on a collision course with Trump’s sweeping efforts to consolidate power within the executive branch."

This is called an “administrative stay” which allows the court and litigants to prepare for a formal hearing. This is the second time T-rump has gone sniveling to the higher court for help, this time in a case the lower court had ordered him to obey their decision. SCOTUS' final decision will be a good indication of its partnership with Trump.

Rick Wilson mocks Moscow Mitch on impeachment moves

Former GOP strategist goes after Moscow Mitch over impeachment

The conservative Rick Wilson who has spent much of his time recently criticizing Republicans and their tactics has taken on Moscow Mitch, Senate head who is ramrodding the impeachment trial. Here's how RawStory described it...

"The ex-Republican compared the GOP majority’s attempt to cover for President Donald Trump to a weekend bender gone horribly wrong."

Here were Wilson's actual words...

“On Friday night, it’s a lot of fun and you’re having a great time. On Saturday, you’re starting to feel it, and on Sunday there’s a dead hooker in the trunk.”

 McConnell's "dead hooker" is a very live NancyPelosi who appears to be conjuring up the last laugh on Moscow Mitch as bombshell developments keep exploding like Rudy Giuliani associate Lev Parnas'recent testimony. And the General Accountability Office's (GAO) recent decree that...

"the Trump administration broke a law that governs how the White House disburses money approved by Congress by withholding $214 million worth of equipment, training and other support to help Ukraine in its battle against Russian-backed forces."

Chief Justice John Roberts administered an oath to all 100 senators on Thursday, swearing them to "do impartial justice" Is that possible when you are talking about this gang? We'll see.   READ MORE...

Your Monday News Buzz

SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts can thwart Moscow Mitch in Senate impeachment trial

Well-known Cleveland attorney James Robenalt, "McConnell’s public pronouncements that he plans to obstruct justice and absolve the president before he has even been handed the articles of impeachment opens the door for judicial review." And, Robenalt exclaims, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, "has the right and duty to step in if he sees justice not being served." It's all in the Constitution, which Moscow Mitch has chosen to ignore in his attempts to exonerate Donald Trump from impeachment.   READMORE...

Overturning Citizens Unlimited Must Come From Grass Roots Level

If there is one thing this country can do to balance the political scales in favor of the people it is to overturn the Citizens United ruling made by SCOTUS in 2010. John Roberts and his activist conservative renegades literally put the wealthy and corporations in charge of elections. The flow of dark money has been unlimited and forced some to rethink their candidacy. New Mexico Democrat Tom Udall proposed a Constitutional Amendment in 2014 that was backed by 54 Senators but was stymied by a Republican filibuster that stopped any action.

Enter Bernie Sanders, who had been an advocate for repeal since it was passed into law, who said, “I am extremely disappointed that not one Republican voted today to stop billionaires from buying elections and undermining American democracy." So now it goes back to the grass roots level to gain momentum for the proposed 28th Constitutional Amendment. John Bonifaz, president of Free Speech for People said, “We have amended the US Constitution before in our nation’s history. Twenty-seven times before. Seven of those times to overturn egregious Supreme Court rulings. For the promise of American democracy, we can and we will do it again.”

The real downside of the Supreme Court and Arizona’s anti-immigration law

Are we sure why many of us disagree with Arizona’s case on illegal immigration in the Supreme Court?  After 40 years that brought 12 million Mexican immigrants into the U.S., more than half illegally, many have decided to shut their own door to the border and stay in Mexico.  A report by the Pew Hispanic Center says more illegals returned South of the Border in 2010 and 2011 than entered the U.S.  But Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer and Russell Pearce want them all out.



Russell Pearce with Jan Brewer



Russell Pearce is the author of Arizona’s anti-immigration law, SB-1070 and the former state Senator who was removed from office because of his radical views on immigration.  Yet he, along with Brewer, was in Washington last week pushing the Supremes.  It might have done some good, along with the fact that many of the Justices, including the liberal ones, don’t completely agree with the feds’ case.  It’s the old “States Rights” issue raising its head again.

The case is not a test of the legality of racial profiling in Arizona but rather a challenge to the federal government which says SB-1070 is unconstitutional because it preempts federal law.  In a Salon article there is a list of the four provisions for preemptive concern as outlined by Lyle Denniston of the SCOTUS blog.  They are:

1. individual’s legal right to be in the U.S., if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” of illegality.  If arrested, the individual cannot be released until his legal status is verified by the federal government.  That is the law’s Section 2(B).

2. A provision making it a crime under state law for an individual to intentionally fail to obtain and carry legal immigrant papers with him while in Arizona (Section 3). 

3. A provision making it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for a job, publicly solicit a job, or actually work in AZ (Section 5[C]). 

4. And, a provision that allows police to arrest without a warrant any person for whom the officer has “probable cause to believe” that the individual has committed any crime, anywhere, that would make that individual subject to being deported (Section 6). 



Hispanic Supreme Court Justice
Sonia Sotomayor



An editorial in the Phoenix Arizona Republic said, “This case is not about civil rights. It's about state vs. federal power. Chief Justice John Roberts made that clear as arguments began. Civil-rights questions are the subject of other lawsuits. ‘So this is not a case about ethnic profiling,’ Roberts said.”  That was followed by the following from the paper:

“Yet those are the deeply troubling aspects of SB 1070. The law put a shadow of suspicion over all Latinos, created painful divisions in our state and gave Arizona an ugly reputation.”

The implication is that many of us progressives disagree with the law, as well as those copy-cats in other states, due to their violation of civil rights.  It is a known fact that law enforcement in Arizona was stopping individuals simply based on the color of their skin, for minor violations, arresting many, some legal residents.  The feds have initiated a program of rounding up illegals but they are only interested in the ones with criminal records, turning minor offenders loose.

Fareed Zacaria of CNN wonders if Mexicans are “giving up on U.S?  He cites the delicate economy here and how NAFTA has made Mexico more competitive.  Some of their exports are even cheaper than China’s.  Zacaria thinks we are losing our “allure.”  He refers to our demographic advantage that is shrinking due to an older median age, which produces less needed young workers.  That had been satisfied to some degree by legal and illegal immigrants entering the U.S.

Illegals are scared to death in states with stringent immigration laws, afraid to leave home without the proper papers.  The issue has also caused a drop in citizens from Latino communities reporting crime, a reaction which has become a major problem for law enforcement.  But, again, this case is not about civil rights.  But it is for those who believe in human rights, so the question is what to do.  The Democrats plan to force a vote in Congress to invalidate Arizona’s SB-1070.

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York has announced his intention of bringing up his “fallback legislation” in the Senate if SCOTUS upholds the law  which probably has little chance of passing there or in the GOP House.  But it would certainly make points with the Hispanic community and act as the prelude to what the Dems might accomplish in November with Obama winning re-election and an increase in numbers in both the House and Senate.