Kansas Crimson

Shirley wrote: ↑Sun Sep 10, 2023 6:59 pm Today In: THERE IS NO FUCKING BOTTOM with these fascists.

This could have easily been posted to the "Evil Rich People" or the "'Conservative' Republican Fascists and Christo-Fascists" threads.

As you begin to digest this, don't forget that Clarence Thomas was the deciding 5th vote in the 2010 Citizens United case.

"A republic, if you can keep it."

What Ginni Thomas and Leonard Leo wrought: How a justice’s wife and a key activist started a movement

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, a trove of so-called “dark money” was about to be unleashed. Two activists prepared to seize the moment.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the 2010 Citizens United case transformed the world of politics. It loosened restrictions on campaign spending and unleashed a flow of anonymous donor money to nonprofit groups run by political activists.

In the months before the ruling dropped in January of that year, a group of conservative activists came together to create just such an organization. Its mission would be to, at the time, block then-President Barack Obama’s pet initiatives.

The activists included Federalist Society leader Leonard Leo and his ideological soulmate, a hard-edged activist named Virginia Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

“Ginni really wanted to build an organization and be a movement leader,” said a person familiar with her thinking at that time. “Leonard [Leo] was going to be the conduit of that.”

She also had a rich backer: Harlan Crow, the manufacturing billionaire who had helped Thomas and her husband in many ways, from funding luxury vacations to picking up tuition payments for their great-nephew.

At the time, the Citizens United ruling was widely expected, as the court had already signaled its intentions. When it came, it upended nearly 100 years of campaign spending restrictions.

The conservative legal movement seized the moment with greater success than any other group, and the consequences have shaped American jurisprudence and politics in dramatic ways.

From those early discussions among Leo, Thomas and Crow would spring a billion-dollar force that has helped remake the judiciary and overturn longstanding legal precedents on abortion, affirmative action and many other issues. It funded legal scholars to devise theories to challenge liberal precedents, helped to elect state attorneys general willing to apply those theories and launched lavish campaigns for conservative judicial nominees who would cite those theories in their rulings from the bench.

The movement’s triumphs are now visible but its engine remains hidden: A billion-dollar network of groups, most of which are registered as tax-exempt charities or social welfare organizations. Taking advantage of gaps in disclosure laws, they shield the identities of most of their donors and some of the recipients of the funds. Among those who’ve been paid by the groups are leading thinkers and individuals with close personal ties to Leo — including a whopping $7 million to a group run by a close friend and his wife. They also include a for-profit business for which Leo himself is chairman and which received tens of millions of dollars from his nonprofit network.

Leo’s role as the central figure in this movement has long been known, culminating in his acquisition last year of what many believe to be the largest political donation in history. Few are aware of the extent to which the movement’s baby steps were taken in concert with Ginni Thomas.

Two months before the Citizens United decision, but after the justices had signaled their intentions by requesting new arguments, attorney Cleta Mitchell — later to play a role in Donald Trump’s false claims about the 2020 elections — filed papers for Ginni Thomas to create a nonprofit group of a type that ultimately benefited from the decision. Leo was one of two directors listed on a separate application to conduct business in the state of Virginia. Thomas was president. She signed it on New Year’s Eve of 2009, and Crow provided much of the initial cash. A key Leo aide, Sarah Field, would come aboard to help Thomas manage the group, which they called Liberty Central.

[...]

dolomite wrote: ↑Wed Sep 13, 2023 4:27 pm Dems whining about the conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Let’s say, Mr. President, that you are a creepy billionaire and it is your plan to capture and control the Supreme Court, to take it over just like 19thcentury robber barons would have taken over and captured the railroad commission that set the rates for their own railroad. Let’s say you sent millions of dollars—secret dollars—to the Federalist Society for it to funnel money to its employee and your operative, Leonard Leo...Let’s say you also sent millions of dollars to Leonard Leo’s Judicial Crisis Network, a fictitious-named front group for another front group operating out of the same hallway, on the same floor, in the same building as the Federalist Society. Let’s say you sent the Judicial Crisis Network secret millions of dollars— checks as big as $15 million, checks as big as $17 million—to run ads against Merrick Garland to help Mitch McConnell block his confirmation by the Senate. Let’s say you also sent millions of dollars, secret dollars, identity laundered through front groups, like 501(c)(4)s and Donors Trust, which exist for the purpose of scrubbing off your identity from your money, and through the 501(c)(4)s and through Donors Trust to Republican political groups, like super PACs controlled by Mitch McConnell. Let’s say, with those secret millions funneled into those super PACs, you acquired loyalty and obedience from Republican political figures. Let’s say that worked.

[...]

Let’s say that worked. Let’s say that for your millions of dollars to the Federalist Society, the Federalist Society allowed you to use its name on a list of Supreme Court nominees that you and your rightwing billionaire pals and Leonard Leo cooked up—a list that the Federalist Society never considered or approved, never an agenda item, never a vote, but a list from some back room of the Federalist Society, pulled together by Leo and the billionaires that Candidate Trump promised to follow.

[...]

Let’s say that for that Trump promise to let you pick Supreme Court Justices, you agreed to hold your nose and not object to Trump’s candidacy. Let’s say that Trump kept that promise and nominated your chosen ones to the Supreme Court, and let’s say that when Trump kept that promise and nominated your chosen ones, you sent millions more to the Judicial Crisis Network and to Mitch McConnell’s political operation, not just to stop Merrick Garland but to push the confirmation of your chosen ones: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

[...]

Let’s say that to keep your chosen ones loyal and happy and entertained, you secretly paid for their personal lives. You paid for family tuitions. You bought family houses and let family members live rent-free. You paid for ‘‘Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous″- level vacations, including free travel to resorts on private jets, travel on private yachts. You gave them expensive gifts, and you directed money to their spouses, and, of course, you hung out with them. Let’s say that last part—keeping them loyal and happy and entertained with all those gifts—was illegal. Illegal. Let’s say that your loyalty gifts program required the chosen ones to file false Federal disclosure forms and perhaps even false tax returns. Let’s say that your loyalty gifts program might put you in trouble with the tax man for claiming false business expenses. How could that be? Let’s say that the chosen ones were calling this bonanza of freebies ‘‘personal hospitality.’’ ‘‘Personal hospitality’’—a term of art allowing nondisclosure under the disclosure laws. Let’s say that they were all calling it ‘‘personal hospitality,’’ but you were calling the bonanza ‘‘deductible business expenses of corporate yachts and jets.’’ Then it wouldn’t all add up. That is a lot of ‘‘let’s say,’’

[...]

Did the Justices receiving gifts and emoluments from the billionaire or the operative properly report them, or did the judicial gifts reporting system fail here? The billionaires’ lawyers say that is not our business. Well, that is Congress’s business for two pretty obvious reasons. First, the reporting requirements are a law passed by Congress whose implementation we can absolutely oversee like any other law passed by Congress, and this law includes Justices. Second, the implementing body of that law is the Judicial Conference, a body created by Congress whose activities we can absolutely oversee—we created it. The notion that Congress cannot investigate to see if an Agency it created is properly implementing laws Congress passed is ludicrous on its face.

Shirley wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 3:19 pm I'm not sure if you intended it, but your link to C-span is a > 5 hour video beginning with a roll call vote.

I suspected it would be of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has been like badger recently pursuing what he sees as a problem with the SCOTUS, its lack of ethics and capture by the billionaires with help from their useful tool, Leonard Leo. I almost posted this yesterday but thought I'd give all of you a break from my pov. Here's a much shorter vid:

September 19 | Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) took to the Senate Floor to deliver the twenty-third in a series of speeches entitled “The Scheme,” exposing the machinations by right-wing donor interests to capture the Supreme Court and achieve through the Court what they cannot through the elected branches of government.

And here's an even shorter version:

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell shares a “stunning” Senate floor speech given by Rhode Island Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and speaks to him about the potential illegal activity Whitehouse sees in the gifts from billionaires to Supreme Court justices

Sparko wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 5:32 pm Sure, corruption and graft sounds bad when you see it all put together. But, look at those vulnerable readers of Anne Frank's Diary!

KUTradition wrote: ↑Wed Sep 20, 2023 6:01 pm i mean, they are more dangerous than guns