The christofasscist cabal that controls the laws of the United States, have made the President a kind of king. The Founders would be appalled; this is exactly what they did not want. I think it should also be noted that Associate Justices Alito and Thomas, were they ethical men, which they are not, would and should have recused themselves but did not. That is how corrupt American justice has become.
WASHINGTON, DC — In an unsparing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court allowed a president to become a “king above the law” in its ruling that limited the scope of criminal charges against former President Donald Trump for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol and efforts to overturn the election.
She called the decision, which likely ended the prospect of a trial for Trump before the November election, “utterly indefensible.”
“The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,” she wrote. She was joined by liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote another dissent referring to the ruling’s consequences as a “five alarm fire.”
Sotomayor read her dissent aloud in the courtroom, with a weighty delivery that underscored her criticism of the majority. She strongly pronounced each word, pausing at certain moments and gritting her teeth at others.
“Ironic isn’t it? The man in charge of enforcing laws can now just break them,” Sotomayor said.
We are no longer a genuine democracy and the minority of Justices on the Supreme Court realize this. Read this dissent on the Corner Post regulatory decision and you can see that Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan all recognize that the federal regulatory agencies are being castrated so that corporate and uber-rich interests are further empowered and wealth inequality will increase and your wellbeing will be diminished.
As the U.S. Supreme Court dealt yet another blow to the federal government’s regulatory authority, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Monday stressed that “the ball is in Congress’ court” to enact legislation to “forestall the coming chaos” wrought by the right-wing supermajority’s decision.
The justices ruled 6-3 in Corner Post Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System that the Administrative Procedures Act’s (APA) statute of limitations period does not begin until a plaintiff is adversely affected by a regulation. The ruling reverses a lower court’s dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Corner Post—a North Dakota truck stop that challenged a U.S. Federal Reserve rule capping debit card swipe fees—because the six-year statute of limitations on such challenges had passed.
Monday’s ruling makes it much easier to sue government agencies. As Sydney Bryant and Devon Ombres […]
I think Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe has the correct view of the immunity decision the Supreme Court just issued. The court as I said in my earlier comment, by decision after decision is turning the United States into Hungary. I am not even sure we should be called a democracy anymore. We have become a nation I, and perhaps you, barely recognize anymore.
Harvard University’s Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe unleashed a ferocious attack on the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court after the ruling in Donald Trump’s immunity case Monday.
Tribe cited Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent, in which she called the decision a “five-alarm-fire for self-government under democracy. The reason is that the court was really flying the flag of the Constitution upside down.”
Chief Justice John Roberts and five other justices ruled that a president has immunity for core official actions carried out while in office, though was constituted official was for a lower court to decide.
“It is worse to use the cloak of presidential authority to commit ordinary crimes for which the rest of us would go to jail than it is to do things […]
, - Americans United for Separation of Church and State / Mother Jones
Stephan:
I am seeing more and more explicit calls to make and enforce Christianity as the national religion of the state, and to breach the firewall separating church and state. That firewall was one of the things the Founders felt most strongly about. At the time of the Revolution (and today for that matter) Great Britain was a nation that since King Henry VIII split from the Roman church, had been ruled by a monarch who was head of both church and state. This linkage for two centuries had caused endless conflict, misery, and death. Several of the original 13 colonies were founded to get away from this linkage and most of the Founders felt very strongly that church and state should not be linked. The christianfascist Republicans are trying to change that, and you should keep that in mind as you vote in November.
Supporters of then-President Donald Trump gather in front of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, DC. A pro-Trump mob later stormed the building. Brent Stirton/Getty
Remember that crushing feeling when we lost Roe v. Wade? The experts warned us. The Christian nationalists told us that was their main goal and the litmus test for their judges. Still, the moment was as devastating as it was surprising. Big steps backward don’t seem possible. But they are. And we’re on the precipice of another appalling and disastrous backward slide.
Christian nationalists are publicly declaring their goal: They want to create a Christian nation, a theocracy, that favors the “right” kind of conservative Christian. And they’re calling it Project 2025. Their handbook is a play-by-play of Christian nationalism gone mainstream.
One of the major issues with the United States’ awful illness profit system, instead of universal birthright healthcare, is the obscene greed of the pharmaceutical industry. For many Americans, the cost of the drugs they need to stay healthy or even alive is a daily crisis. I hope this article will help any of you who are caught up in this disgusting system to find a solution that works for you and your family.
After Jackie Trapp was diagnosed with multiple myeloma, an incurable blood cancer, in 2015, she thought her biggest health shock was behind her. Then came the bills for Revlimid, a powerful cancer drug that her doctor said was her best hope for controlling the disease. The first month’s supply cost $11,148; the second, $12,040—and her insurer denied coverage. “I’d need to take the drug every month, for years,” says Trapp, 59, a former high school teacher and realtor from Muskego, Wis. “My husband and I had done well in our careers, we’d been frugal and we’d saved, but there was no way paying $120,000 a year or more was sustainable.”
Figuring out how to pay for the drug that’s keeping her alive has become an all-consuming project. Trapp fought her insurer’s denial and won, and has switched health plans twice to ensure continued coverage. […]