Early this morning, Newsweek reported that crackpot Trump attorney, Sidney Powell, on the verge of losing her law license, claimed, during an appearance on the Stew Peters hate talk radio show Friday that the January 6 riot at the Capitol was intended to be used to give Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito time to stop the certification of Joe Biden's election victory. She seems to believe that there was a conspiracy of some kind between Trump, Kevin McCarthy, Steve Scalise, Louie Gohmert, Alito and herself to prevent Biden's election from being certified.
She claimed that as a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol that day, her team was seeking an emergency injunction to prevent the certification of Biden's win.
"We were filing a 12th Amendment constitutional challenge to the process that the Congress was about to use under the Electoral Act provisions that simply don't jive with the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution," she said. "And Justice Alito was our circuit justice for that."
She added: "Louie Gohmert was the plaintiff in our lawsuit, and we were suing the vice president to follow the 12th Amendment as opposed to the Electoral College Act."
"There had been inside goings-on in Congress whereby I believe it was Steve Scalise and McCarthy kept her from being an actual party," Powell said. "She wanted to work her way into the case as a party, but somehow politically that didn't happen."
Powell alleged that when Pelosi learned of the lawsuit, she hurriedly reconvened Congress to certify Biden's victory shortly after the attack on the Capitol.
"She got notice when we made our filing because she wanted to file an amicus brief," Powell said. "And everything broke loose and she really had to speed up reconvening Congress to get the vote going before Justice Alito might have issued an injunction to stop it all, which is what should have happened."
Powell does not make it clear if Alito was aware of the role he was expected to play, but her comments prompted his name to trend on Twitter on Sunday.
That's not the kind of trend on Twitter the Supreme Court wants right now. On Friday, Robert Barnes and Seung Min Kim reported reported that "The Supreme Court’s approval rating is plummeting, its critics are more caustic and justices are feeling compelled to plead the case to the public that they are judicial philosophers, not politicians in robes. All of this as the court embarks Oct. 4 on one of the most potentially divisive terms in years. Cases already docketed concern gun control, the separation of church and state, and the biggest showdown in decades on the future of Roe v. Wade and the constitutional right to abortion. Meanwhile, a presidential commission studying the court is being bombarded with criticism from the left, and occasionally the right, that the justices are too political, too powerful and serve for too long."
“Not since Bush v. Gore has the public perception of the court’s legitimacy seemed so seriously threatened,” the Georgetown Supreme Court Institute’s executive director, Irv Gornstein, said last week at a preview of the court’s upcoming term.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said she has grave concerns for the court, and government in general.
“I worry a great deal about it, because when the public begins to question and doubt the independence of this third, separate but equal branch of government, they’ve got a problem here,” she said, adding, “I think the public needs to be able to trust that the judiciary will be that independent, unbiased check” on the political branches.
A Gallup poll released last week said Americans’ opinions of the Supreme Court have dropped to a new low, with only 40 percent approving of the justices’ job performance. “At this point, less than a majority of Republicans, Democrats and independents approve of the job the court is doing,” said Gallup, which has been tracking the trend since 2000.
A recent survey by Marquette University Law School documented the same dramatic drop. Its numbers showed public approval sliding from 60 percent in July to 49 percent in September.
For his entire miserable life, everything Trump has ever touched has turned to shit. And that includes the Supreme Court. The Trump appointees are biased partisans and should never have been confirmed. Talk about a forensic audit; I have no doubt that a real audit of the 2016 election would show that Trump was an illegitimate president, that he never won Pennsylvania, Wisconsin or Michigan and possibly not Florida either. That would be worth doing first and foremost to banish Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett from the Court.
In the 18th century the only definition of bribery was the common law definition: If you offered to give something of value to someone in a position of power, or seeking such a position, you committed a crime. If they accepted they also committed a crime. Likewise, a person in power demanding a gift was crime. This understanding remains the common understanding. And remains enshrined as 'straight arrow ethics' in FARS, Federal Acquisition Regulations. A government DoD contracting officer cannot accept so much as a donut from a potential contractee. I learned this in my time at GaTech doing contract research in the '80s for the DoD. But the Court had already begun to shred the Constitution by narrowing the defi…
*IF* americans DO NOT see the supreme court as politically partisan, it's only another proof that americans are dumber than shit.
bush v. gore proved it beyond any shadow of a doubt. and the laundry list of political hacks named since then (include clarence thomas, the EOE nom that biden ushered in by refusing to call witnesses during his confirmation) and cat'lick zealots since... you'd HAVE to be dumber than shit to conclude any different.
note: the performance of Garland as AG proves that he would not have been much of an improvement. But he would have been obamanation's guy, so democrap voters would not see this.
blame the supreme court on the federalist society, the nazi party and the…