Wednesday, September 06, 2023

Dianne Feinstein gets even more pathetic

Senator Dianne Feinstein is a disgrace.  When she dies, which is probably in the near future, nobody better start trying to turn her into some hero.  She is a weak ass senator and that goes back since the beginning of time.  She voted for the Iraq War.  She helped condone torture.  She lied about Ed Snowden and she messed up every confirmation hearing resulting in so many bad judges getting confirmed.  She's an old embarrassment at this point.  John L. Dorman (BUSINESS INSIDER) reports:


Sen. Dianne Feinstein told a reporter that her daughter did not have permission to do anything regarding her legal affairs, only to later walk that statement back and affirm giving her daughter power of attorney.

The 90-year-old California Democrat, who had a monthslong absence from the Capitol as she battled health issues earlier this year, in recent months has also been the subject of multiple news reports that have detailed a range of issues that she has faced regarding her agility.

In August, it was reported that Sen. Dianne Feinstein had given power of attorney to her daughter, former San Francisco Superior Court judge Katherine Feinstein.

While speaking with The San Francisco Chronicle on Wednesday, the senator confirmed that she had given Katherine Feinstein power of attorney over her legal affairs, stating that the decision would give her the opportunity to continue working effectively for her constituents.

But when Sen. Feinstein initially spoke with The Chronicle, she told the publication that she "gave no permission to do anything" when questioned about Katherine Feinstein's involvement in her legal affairs.


She needs to be out of the Senate.  She shouldn't have run for re-election the last time -- and some of us (including me) said so back then.  She is a disgrace.  Her antics on the Judiciary Committee guaranteed that we ended up with the current illegitimate Court and that was true even in 2006 -- I don't remember if it's Alito or Roberts (I think it's Alito) but Rebecca, in real time, covered that confirmation hearing and noted how Dianne's facts were laughable and how she kept trying to showboat on the Committee by interrupting points -- strong points -- being made by Ted Kennedy and others.  She is a disgrace and she has always been one.  That is her legacy.


"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Wednesday, September 6, 2023.  The US State Dept wants to give out 'advice' on Kirkuk, Baghdad would rather make trouble for Kurdistan than make billions of dollars in oil revenue, hate merchant Ron DeSantis continues to destroy Florida and aims to do the same to the United States.


Over the past weekend, the federal government was supposed to return buildings to the KDP (see yesterday's "Iraq snapshot").  The KDP is the biggest political party in the Kurdistan.  Following the non-binding referendum the Kurdistan held on independence, the federal government grabbed up the buildings in a retaliatory exercise.  In the lead up to the weekend, some began protesting the handover -- some included Shi'ite militias.  Chenar Chalak (RUDAW) notes, "Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) and their supporters staged a sit-in near the headquarters of the Iraqi military’s Joint Operations Command (JOC) in Kirkuk and blocked the main Kirkuk-Erbil highway for nearly a week, causing inconvenience for incoming and outgoing citizens using the key road, and frustration for nearby residents." Were Kirkuk not oil-rich and a disputed territory, it might have gone differently.  On Saturday, four Kurds were killed in clashes and over a dozen more injured by the 'protesters' who didn't want the handover to take place.  

Yesterday, at a US State Dept press briefing, spokesperson Vedant Patel was asked about this incident.

QUESTION: Thank you, Vedant. A few questions about Iraq. The first: What’s your comment about the recent events in Kirkuk, which is disputed area in Iraq? There were protesting between the Kurds and Arabists. Four protesters were killed and dozens were wounded and arrested. What’s your comment on that, and what is the U.S. view about the current tension between Kurds and Arabists in Kirkuk?

MR PATEL: So we’re closely monitoring the tensions in Kirkuk. We condemn the violence that took place and express our condolences to the families of those killed. The U.S. calls on all parties to resolve any disputes through dialogue and through the activation of Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution.

QUESTION: One more question between – the disputes between Baghdad and Erbil over the budget and also revenue sharing. There are still the Baghdad refuse to disburse the KRG shares, and the KRG accusing Baghdad that they are – they have an intention to fuel the current financial crisis in KRG just to have some to get more gains, strategic gains in the Kurdistan region. Have you any engagement with both Baghdad and Erbil on this?

MR PATEL: We of course engage regularly with partners in Baghdad and Erbil, and I will let our missions in both of those cities speak to this engagement with any more specificity.



The US calls on all parties to resolve any disputes through dialogue and through the activation of Article 140 of the Iraqi constitution?  Did the reporters have to pay a cover charge during Patel's stand-up?

Article 140 was supposed to be implemented by the end of 2007.  Per the Constitution that the US government is now saying should be followed.  In spring of 2006, the US government installed Nouri al-Maliki as prime minister of Iraq following a CIA assessment that argued Nouri would be easy for the US government to control due to his immense paranoia.  He was prime minister at the end of 2007 and he refused to follow the Constitution.

He continued to refuse throughout his first term.  In the March 2010 elections, Nouri was voted out of office.  Iraqiya won that election and its leader, Ayad Allawi, should have been given the right to form the government.

Instead, Nouri refused to step down.  And the US government went along with it.  For eight months and several days following the March 2010 election, the government had a political stalemate.  Instead of demanding that Nouri -- who had brought secret prisons and torture chambers -- step down and that the votes of the Iraqi people be honored, then-US President Barack Obama had then-Vice President Joe Biden oversee the negotiation of a legal contract -- The Erbil Agreement -- between the leaders of the various political blocs and it would give Nouri a second term and Nouri would agree to give the blocs different things that they wanted.  The Kurdistan, for example, wanted Article 140 implemented.  In writing, Nouri agreed to it.  After the signing of the contract, the day after, the Iraqi parliament finally met up and Nouri was then named prime minister-designate -- this was November of 2010 -- and he promised publicly that Article 140 would be implemented before the end of the year . . . promised that until the start of the next month.  He'd need more time.

As we said at that time, the Kurdistan leaders were being idiots to believe that Nouri would implement because of a legal contract when, despite it being mandated in the Iraqi Constitution, he'd refused to implement it.

Nouri never did.  This despite that day in Parliament, when Nouri was named prime minister-designate, Barack personally calling Ayad Allawi and asking him to get Iraqiya members back into Parliament (there had been a walk out) and swearing that The Erbil Agreement had the full backing of the United States.

The US never gave another thought to that contract -- one that they had honestly imposed upon Iraq.

So it's really funny to hear the US State Dept now insist that the Iraqi Constitution needs to be followed when they could have made it happen back in 2007 and again back in 2010.  

Brookings warned about this while Bully Boy Bush was in office.  They noted this needed to be implemented and the issue needed to be resolved.  Instead, it's been kick the can all along.

Baghdad is currently refusing to pay what it owes Kurdistan from the national budget.  It's trying to sew chaos in Kurdistan.  AFP reports:

Thousands of people carrying flags of Iraqi Kurdistan demonstrated on Tuesday in the autonomous region over unpaid civil service salaries which they blamed on Baghdad, an AFP correspondent reported.

The protest occurred in a region where activists usually accuse local Kurdistan authorities of repressing any sign of dissent.

It came in the context of simmering tensions after protests turned violent and led to the deaths of four people on Saturday in the multi-ethnic city of Kirkuk, whose control has historically been disputed between Iraqi Kurdistan and federal authorities in Baghdad.

"Kurdistan will not back down in the face of the Iraqi authorities' hostile policies," one banner said at the demonstration in Dohuk, the third-biggest city in the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq.

"Solidarity with our people in Kirkuk," said another placard.

An administrator in a hospital, Massoud Mohamed, said he had not received a salary in two months. "We must get our rights," the 45-year-old said. "They want to weaken our region."

 

Erbil-based Kurdish media outlet Rudaw said several officials, including governor of Dohuk Ali Tatar, took part in the protests.

Mr Tatar blamed Dohuk's lack of oil revenue for the salary issue.

"When we had oil, we distributed salaries properly. What is 500b dinars ($381m) enough for?" he said, according to Rudaw.

In March, a dispute between Baghad and Erbil escalated over revenue sharing and oil production after the International Chamber of Commerce ruled against Kurdistan's unilateral oil exports under its own 2007 law.

Since March 25, more than 450,000 b/d of oil that usually heads to the Mediterranean remains offline amid lingering issues among Baghdad, Erbil and Ankara over the resumption of flows.


Some analysts place the number of revenues lost as a result of Baghdad's actions on restricting the oil to Turkey to be up to four billion dollars.  Meanwhile, THE NEW ARAB reports:

The US is storing offensive military weapons at a base in Iraq, despite an agreement meant to see the US transition from a combative to a training and advisory role almost two years ago, a senior Iraqi military official has said.

The source told The New Arab's Arabic-language sister site Al-Araby Al-Jadeed that he had seen weaponry including Black Hawk and Apache helicopters present during a recent visit to the Ain al-Asad base in western Iraq by Iraqi military officials.

"The recent visit of the military delegation to Ain al-Asad base revealed the presence of offensive equipment and weapons," the official reportedly said.


Turning to the US, Val Demings is a former police officer and a former member of the US House of Representatives.  She Tweets:


On yesterday's DEMOCRACY NOW!, the responsibility of those who preach hate was addressed.


AMY GOODMAN: We’re looking now at the rise in racist attacks in the United States and a new campaign to take back the mic from those who seed hate. The latest deadly attack came just over a week ago in Jacksonville, Florida, when a white supremacist gunman shot and killed three Black people at a Dollar General store, then shot himself dead. The gunman used racial slurs, had a swastika-emblazoned assault-style AR-15 rifle, along with a handgun. He attacked the store in a predominantly Black neighborhood after being turned away from the HBCU campus of Edward Waters University, the historically Black college. Law enforcement officials say there’s no question the killings were racially motivated. The three victims were Angela Carr, Jerrald Gallion and AJ Laguerre Jr. This is Sabrina Rozier, grandmother of Gallion’s 4-year-old daughter.

SABRINA ROZIER: All my grandbaby keeps saying is “Where’s my daddy?” And all I can do is grab her, because I don’t have the words right now. … I thought racism was behind us, but evidently it’s not. You was a coward. You went in and shot these innocent people for nothing, that you didn’t even know.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Sabrina Rozier, speaking with CNN.

Federal law enforcement has opened a civil rights investigation into the attack as a possible hate crime and act of domestic violent extremism. This comes as federal data shows hate crimes are on the rise in the United States, that Black people were targeted in half of all the racially motivated hate crimes.

On Saturday, President Biden addressed the Jacksonville attack when he was in Florida to tour storm damage after Hurricane Idalia.

PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: We’re still reeling from the shooting rampage near Edward Waters University, an HBCU, last weekend, a terrorist act driven by racial hatred and animus. Our hearts are with you, those of you who were affected and all your families. A terrorist act, as I said, driven by hatred and animus.

And, ladies and gentlemen, let me say this clearly: Hate will not prevail in America. Hate will not prevail in America. Racism will not prevail in America. Domestic terrorism will not prevail in America. And to make it real clear, silence on this issue, both public and private, from the private sector, silence is complicity. We must not, we will not remain silent.

AMY GOODMAN: President Biden was in Florida to tour the hurricane damage. Governor DeSantis refused to meet him there. He went around with Senator Rick Scott of Florida.

Just last year, a gunman targeting Black people killed 10 people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, the Tops grocery store. In 2021, a gunman killed eight people, including six Asian American women, in Atlanta. The Jacksonville, Florida, shooter reportedly left a suicide note and other writings that laid out his racist ideology.

Now a diverse group of faith leaders is calling on elected leaders in Florida and nationwide to, quote, “cease and desist from sowing division and hate.” The move comes after Republican Florida governor and presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis spoke at a vigil where he was booed by the crowds, with one person shouting out, “Your policies caused this.” DeSantis and Florida Republicans have imposed racist laws, including rolling back diversity and inclusion policies and attacking African American studies. DeSantis also opposes gun law reform.

The new Take Back the Mic from Haters campaign will also mark this month’s 60th anniversary of the horrific bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama, often called “Bombingham” at the time, that killed four young Black girls September 15th, 1963.

For more, we’re joined by Bishop William Barber, president and senior lecturer at Repairers of the Breach, founding director of the Center for Public Theology & Public Policy at Yale Divinity School. His new piece for The Guardian is headlined “The racist murders in Jacksonville didn’t happen in a vacuum. Words came first.”

Bishop Barber, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about the context in which that young white shooter, leaving behind racist manifestos, first tried to get into a historically Black college, when turned away by a brave security guard, opened fire at a dollar store.

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Yeah, Amy. Bishop Reid of the AME Church in Florida, the oldest Black denomination, has been working with myself and others to bring together a diverse group of clergy — Jews, Muslims, Christians — to actually have a whole season of resistance, that will continue even after the actions, this coming Thursday having a press conference and to announce what’s going on, calling for 10 days of fasting, confession and repentance, and for politicians to cease and desist or resign, and then calling for the communities to rise up, take back the mic, not let hate have the last word, and to mobilize and register to vote. On the Saturday — next Friday, the Friday will be a massive leaflets drop of these cease-and-desists by students, Black and white and Asian students, in Tallahassee, leaving from the conference of the AME Church. And then, on Saturday the 16th, the one-day anniversary right after the bombing of the four girls in Birmingham, there will be a massive gathering in Jacksonville, diverse people coming together and denouncing all of this hate.

You think about — we’ve got to talk about what, not just who, has killed these people, and who, what is killing across this country. DeSantis and others are spewing hate rhetoric, hate against Black history, hate against trans people, hate against women, hate against immigrants. And the suggestion is that these are the problem. Now, we know that this is this division and distraction. They use hate rhetoric and culture wars to distract from the areas that he’s failed as a governor, which I’d like to talk about in a second.

But this has a history. In the early 1900s, Woodrow Wilson spewed hate, called Birth of a Nation, that glorified the Klan, the history that the nation needed. And in a few years, what did you have? You had Red Summer, where Black men and others were killed and run out of town all over this country in reaction to what was being spewed by the president. In 1963, you had an Alabama governor, George Wallace, say, “Segregation yesterday, today and tomorrow.” He loosed the idea that Black people were the problem, that the fight for integration was the problem. By the end of year, you had people blown up in Birmingham, dogs sicced on children, children blown up in Alabama. And if you continue down this road, in 1960, August 17, 1960, the Florida Legislature, the extremists, the Dixiecrats, were railing against integration. They were pushing all kind of divisive rhetoric. Even the governor, who was a moderate at the time, Collins, but he had said that the Supreme Court had overreached. What happened? You had the ax handle mob in Jacksonville, where a white mob brought ax handles and beat Black men, while the police watched, until Black men started fighting back, and then they joined in.

So there is this history of not just who kills, but what kills and what creates the atmosphere. And spewing hate from the most powerful levels of government gives license. It others people. It puts it in the ethos and suggests that it’s all right to eliminate folks. So, what happens is, this guy goes to a Black HBCU. He’s been hearing all the while that Black history is a problem, it’s a lie, wokeness is a lie. So, if he’s already skewed toward racism, then he begins to hear from the most powerful people this is what you do, it can trigger. We’re not saying DeSantis did the killing, but as Dr. King said at the death of, funeral of the four girls that were killed, he said, “We must not just talk about who, but what — what killed them.”

And lastly, I want to put this on the record. It’s not just DeSantis. Down in Florida, he has gotten Black people, certain Black scholars, to join with him and lie about Black history and call for the elimination of courses. He has gotten Black people to join him, some of them to join him in pushing against affirmative action programs. They are just as guilty, as well, because it doesn’t matter what the color of your skin is. Once you spew this stuff and loose it and suggest that people are the problem — they’re not people with problems, but problem people — it can create all kinds of justifications in the ethos for violence and other kinds of death.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Bishop Barber, I wanted to ask you — in the same climate of intolerance and hate that is promoted by some of these top Florida leaders, we see a judge rule on a redistricting case, congressional redistricting in North Florida, saying that DeSantis and the other political leaders violated the state’s constitution, ordering them to create a new map. Your response to this news?

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, you know, I know about that. In North Carolina, we beat back extremists who redistricted, and we met them in court, found out that they had engaged in racism with surgical intention. And what we know with redistricting is it’s another form of diversion and division and lies, because what it says is that somehow people are cheating, somehow people are not doing right. But the extremists, they want to cheat, because they can’t win. They can’t win on policies. So what they want to do is create a situation where they stack, pack and block and bleach Black voters, not just so Black can’t elect Black people, but so Black people and white people and others can’t form fusion coalitions to elect the candidates of their choice.

And why do they do this? Why are they so afraid? Because DeSantis and those with him, they don’t want to talk about the real record. That’s why they redistrict illegally. That’s why they engage in culture wars. They don’t want to talk about Florida. There are 9 million poor and low-wealth people, 44% of the state, and their policies aren’t doing anything about that. They don’t want to talk about the 7 million voters in Florida that are poor and low-wealth. And if just 3% of them would vote that haven’t voted, they could send any of them home. They don’t want to talk about the fact that in Florida over 4 million people make less than a living wage, while the Legislature there and the governor there have been blocking living wages. They don’t want to talk about — that’s 32% of white workers and 57% of Black workers. They don’t want to talk about the fact that you have over 2 million people in Florida — 2.5 million people, who are uninsured, even during the pandemic, and that the life in Florida, the life expectancy, went down in Florida. And one study shows that among Republicans, their life expectancy went down, and it’s directly connected to the ways DeSantis and others like him railed against vaccines and railed against protections during COVID. They don’t want to talk about the fact that 8.4 million workers, 78% of the workforce, do not have access to paid leave. They don’t want to talk about when you end, cuts in Medicaid, 800,000 people who lost access to healthcare.

See, they support all of those policies, so they don’t want to talk about this. So, where do they want to focus? They want to focus on culture wars and division and dissension, and they want to fight for redistricting, racist redistricting, which undermines the ability for votes to count. And that’s why when we criticize them, we can’t just talk about hate. We’ve got to make the connections. One of the things we’ve said to Democrats is: Don’t just talk about the deaths that are caused when somebody uses a gun to kill; connect that to the deaths that come when people are kept in poverty. Poverty is now the fourth-leading cause of death. So, if you are fighting addressing poverty and fighting addressing living wages and fighting addressing healthcare, that is also a form of death and a form of violence. We have to connect the dots. Racist voter suppression creates death, because when you suppress the right to vote and you stack and pack and bleach Black voters, you allow extremists to get elected, who then, once they get elected, they block healthcare, they block living wages, they block addressing poverty. And when you do those things, people die. Bad public policy creates death. Racist rhetoric and division can create a context of death, give people the license to kill. All of it is deadly.

And we must take back the mic, raise up an army of love and truth and light, that will say, “We’re not having it anymore. We’re going to call you to cease, desist, to repent, to confess. And if you won’t, then we’ve got to mobilize and send some people home,” so that they won’t have the power and the mic to continue to do what they’re doing. They may have the same opinion, but they won’t have the power, and the power of the office and the mic, to continue to spew their divisive rhetoric.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Bishop Barber, I wanted to ask you — in this recent hurricane, Idalia, clearly, the country is facing and the world is facing more and more natural disasters, so many of them fueled by climate change. President Biden goes down to Florida, and the governor, DeSantis, doesn’t even bother to meet with him. Your response to the president’s words? Especially he spoke out against the attack, this racist attack, as well as offering assistance to the people of Florida ravaged by Idalia.

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, you know, DeSantis, though he’s trained and educated even at Yale and got a law degree, he’s rooted in racism and meanness. He has decided that this is his way to office: distraction, division, deflection, focusing on culture wars so that he cannot be labeled as a failed governor. That’s what he really is — not a presidential candidate, he’s a failed governor. Anytime you have this many poor and low-wealth people and low-wage workers and you haven’t addressed those issues, you’re a failed governor.

The president was right to call out the racism and call out the rhetoric and say that, either private or publicly, if you’re quiet, then you’re complicit. I would also encourage the president to go one step further, though. And that is to say it’s not just the racist rhetoric. The racist rhetoric and the culture wars and the hatred toward women, the hatred toward immigrants, the hatred toward the trans community is a form of deflection. And then the president run the record and show how the same person who’s spewing all of this division, guess what? He’s not addressing the issue of poverty in your state. He’s not addressing more than 40% of the people working for less than a living wage, even though the people voted for a living wage to happen in Florida. He’s not addressing the more than 2.5 million people that don’t have healthcare. In other words, connect the rhetoric not just to the deaths that are caused by someone like the young man who did what he did and creating the ethos of death, but actually show how they are failing in their roles as governors and legislators, and that’s why they want the division and the deflection and the deception, so that we don’t see how they’re also engaging in forms of policy violence and policy murder, which is hurting the lives of people. And it doesn’t have to be this way. Imagine if this same governor was bringing people together, was raising the minimum wage, was ensuring healthcare and those things. Florida would be a very, very different place. He does not want people to look at that, and so he’s posturing himself like the Dixiecrat governors of the old South.

And we need a new South to rise that’s not fooled by that, that brings Black people together, white people together, Brown people, Asians, Latinos, gay, straight — it doesn’t matter who you are — and says, “We’re not having it anymore. We’re taking back the mic. We’re mobilizing.” And we’re going to do it, because the fact of the matter is, Juan, if just 2 to 3% of poor and low-wealth voters in Florida who have not voted chose to vote an agenda, they could send any candidate home, including Ron DeSantis. Poor and low-wealth folk have the power. That’s what Bishop Frank Reid and others are saying. They understand. And why they’re calling for this is that there comes a time, as the Bible says, when the stone that the builders rejected have to rise up and become the cornerstone of a new reality. That’s what we’re going to launch on Thursday and beyond. It must happen, not just in Florida, but across the country. Take back this mic.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Bishop Barber, I wanted to ask you — Ron DeSantis is still only a — he’s not the major candidate for the Republican Party. Obviously, Donald Trump still remains the major candidate. And could you comment on Trump’s virtual silence on all of these racist attacks that have been occurring and these hate crimes around the country?

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, you know, he laid the foundation for it, so he doesn’t have to say anything. His very presence has already laid it down. He does enough at his rally. I mean, he is the provocateur par excellence. You know, he is the one that has really laid the playbook down, and Ron DeSantis is playing it.

But I think Ron DeSantis, in some ways, is more dangerous than Trump because of his background, his education, that he’s been a governor — Trump had never held political office — and that Ron DeSantis is doing all these things as the governor. Right now he’s caught up, you know, in the popularity of Trump among people who are mean and racist. You know, he doesn’t have that kind of play nationally, but he has that kind of play within the party. And he has a lot of play within the country because of the ongoing history of racism and division. And, you know, hatred and meanness sells and works, and othering people turns a lot of people on. That’s why folk that don’t agree with it, we can’t stay home. You can’t have low voter turnout, because that allows extremists to get elected. But DeSantis, I think, in some ways, and these legislatures are more dangerous than Trump, because they actually can enact policy. You see, they are actually passing policy. And that’s what I don’t want people to miss.

I said to some people it’s OK for us to get upset when he attacks Black history. It’s right for us to be bothered with them and move when these folk have been killed. But let’s not think that there wasn’t a big problem before this, and there weren’t problems beyond just the rhetoric. Go back to the policies. DeSantis is a failed governor. He is a man that only got elected the first time by 1.5% of the vote. He didn’t get elected overwhelmingly. And then, the second time, I think maybe about 3 or 4%. He is not even invincible. But as long as he has the mic, as long as he has that Legislature, they can continue to push and promote not only rhetoric, but policy. And both the rhetoric and the policy is deadly. That’s what makes DeSantis and these other extremists in these state houses and legislatures even more formidable, in some way, than Trump, because they actually have legislated.

Now, right now it looks like Trump right now has, you know, this popularity within the body of extremism. But make no mistake: These guys are not just running for office for right now. They are running — they’re hoping Trump goes to jail. They’re hoping they can step in afterwards. And if you listen to the Republicans that are running, there’s not a dime of difference, there’s not a penny of difference, between them and the policies of Trump. The only thing they’re differing is the antics of Trump, in terms of the way he has done some things seemingly illegal. But they have the same policy, the same rhetoric, the same division, the same deception, the same denial of dealing with poverty. It’s the same thing.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, speaking of taking the mic, Bishop Barber, when — after that young white male shooter killed three people, Black people, in Jacksonville, there was this vigil, and Governor Ron DeSantis took the mic. But he was booed roundly by the crowds. One attendee shouted out, “Your policies caused this!” I want to play that clip.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is here. We’re going to ask the governor if he would come down and give remarks —

CROWD: Boo!

ATTENDEE: You’re not welcome here! These deaths are on your hands!

CROWD: Boo!

GOV. RON DESANTIS: Thank you for doing this. I want to just say to the councilwoman —

CROWD: Boo!

GOV. RON DESANTIS: Councilwoman — councilwoman —

CROWD: Boo!

GOV. RON DESANTIS: I got you. Don’t worry about it. We’ve already been looking to identify funds to be able to help.

AMY GOODMAN: So, you can hear what was going on at that vigil. So, there you have just the crowd essentially taking the mic. But then you have, in Tennessee, a young man you know well, just celebrated his 28th birthday, the legislator Justin Jones, who was thrown out, along with another Justin, Justin Pearson — one represents Nashville, the other Memphis — of the state Legislature.

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Yeah, Justin Jones was silenced by —

AMY GOODMAN: And now — right. Then he was thrown out. They spent a lot of money having to redo the election. He’s voted right back in by Nashville. And then, last week, he is silenced by the Legislature. This is the last minute we have, but if you can talk about what’s happening?

BISHOP WILLIAM BARBER II: Well, a couple things. Justin Jones got elected in the most diverse district in Tennessee. Let’s note that. That’s why he’s such a thing of fear to the extremists. Also, he got silenced when he went to the floor to put a slate of policies, 12 things that he’s calling on legislators to join him in fighting for. He’s not just dealing in the emotionalism; he’s actually dealing in policy.

DeSantis was booed, should have been booed, because the only reason he should have been there was to get on his knees and repent for how he has helped create an atmosphere and an ethos of othering and division that gives license to this kind of violence. We’ve seen it down through history.

But I also want to say to Floridians, even before this happened, he should have been booed. He should have been booed for the way that he has not dealt with poverty. He should have been booed for the way he’s not dealt with living wages. He should have been booed for the way he’s blocked healthcare. He should have been booed for the way he lied and caused people to die, in essence, by saying you don’t need to get vaccines. He has a whole record that needs to be booed. And that’s what I’m arguing for. He needs not just for when he has attacked Black history and in this moment. Sure, this is — what we see here and all that rhetoric has created such a bad atmosphere, but look at his whole record.

And let’s take the mic and raise up and mobilize all over the country, but starting in Florida, people who will not be about partisan politics but will be about principled politics, and say, “If you are going to use the mic to spread division, deception and distraction and create an ethos of death and violence, we’re going to take the mic from you, send you home the best way we can, in love and through our votes. Our votes are going to speak, our voices are going to speak, because what we cannot have in this moment is leaders who use powerful positions to create a kind of a pathological atmosphere and an ethos of violence and destruction. It’s been deadly in the past, and it’s deadly in the present.

AMY GOODMAN: Bishop William Barber, we thank you for being with us, president and senior lecturer at Repairers of the Breach, founding director of the Center for Public Theology & Public Policy at Yale Divinity School. We’ll link to your new piece in The Guardian, “The racist murders in Jacksonville didn’t happen in a vacuum. Words came first.”

Coming up, we speak with a psychologist, Roy Eidelson, whose new book is just out, Doing Harm: How the World’s Largest Psychological Association Lost Its Way in the War on Terror. Back in 30 seconds.



Ron DeSantis is one of the biggest hate merchants in this country.  He is destroying Florida and, given the chance, he would love to destroy all of America.  Greg Owen (LGBTQ NATION) reports on Ron DeSantis' Florida:


Neo-Nazis dressed up in matching red and black outfits, their identities haphazardly obscured by ski masks and colorful sunglasses, marched on Walt Disney World this weekend in a display more akin to cosplay than a latter-day Third Reich Nuremberg rally.

The Nazi groups shouted white supremacist, antisemitic and anti-LGBTQ+ messages and threw Nazi salutes as they marched and wandered around the Disney Springs shopping center at the mega-resort, as well as in a separate rally a few miles north of Orlando in Altamonte Springs.







These anti-Black, anti-LGBTQ, anti-trans, anti-immigrant actions have a financial price, too. Conventions have begun refusing to come to Florida — at least 10 have canceled in Broward County alone. Disney killed a $1 billion development planned for Central Florida after DeSantis attacked the company’s right to free speech. The NAACP issued a travel advisory in May of this year, urging people of color and LGBTQ individuals to avoid the Sunshine State, a move the governor derided as a “stunt.” That was three months before the Jacksonville shooting.

Other groups have cautioned about coming to Florida. The Florida Immigrant Coalition issued a travel advisory this year. So did Equality Florida, an LGBTQ civil-rights organization. As the group’s senior policy adviser, Carlos Guillermo Smith, told the Editorial Board, Florida has “rolled out the welcome mat for hatred and bigotry.”

There is a term for what DeSantis has been doing as he stokes resentments of immigrants and Black people and trans people. It’s called “othering” — when you turn the person you’re attacking into someone you keep at arm’s length. You don’t know them or understand them or care about them. You can impose all sorts of negatives onto that kind of a blank canvas. It’s the opposite of empathy. And it makes it easier to pass laws that target them. They’re the “other.”

What’s going on in Florida isn’t a left-versus-right thing. It’s a right-versus-wrong thing. Going after various groups of people to push them out of public life isn’t about liberalism or conservatism. It’s about denying them human dignity and human rights.

DeSantis, though, specializes in dread and fear. So far, he has been restricted to one state. Imagine what he would do if he exported his vision to the whole country.



The following sites updated:

Tuesday, September 05, 2023

That illegitimate Supreme Court

The Supreme Court scandals in the news today?  Zach Schonfeld (THE HILL) reports:

 

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Monday urged Chief Justice John Roberts to investigate Justice Samuel Alito over his recent comments about Supreme Court ethics.

In a seven-page letter, Whitehouse lodged an ethics complaint about Alito’s recent interview with The Wall Street Journal’s opinion section, in which the conservative justice said Congress has no authority to regulate the high court.

Whitehouse, a leading critic in the Senate of ethics standards at the Supreme Court, urged Roberts to “take whatever steps are necessary” to probe the matter.

“On the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have heard in every recent confirmation hearing that it would be improper to express opinions on matters that might come before the Court. In this instance, Justice Alito expressed an opinion on a matter that could well come before the Court,” he wrote.

Here's the press release Senator Whitehouse's office put out about Alito:


09.05.23

Whitehouse Lodges Ethics Complaint Against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito

Complaint follows Justice Alito’s improper public criticism of Whitehouse’s comprehensive Supreme Court ethics reform legislation. Whitehouse wrote directly to Chief Justice Roberts due to SCOTUS’s lack of formal process for receiving or investigating ethics complaints.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, today wrote a letter Chief Justice John Roberts to lodge an ethics complaint against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for violating several canons of judicial ethics. 

Whitehouse’s formal complaint follows revelations that Justice Alito accepted but did not disclose gifts of luxury travel and exclusive lodging from right-wing billionaires, one with business before the Court.  Justice Alito then made public comments opining on the constitutionality of Whitehouse’s Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency legislation to reform the Court’s lax ethics regime, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee in July.  Justice Alito’s comments also implicated ongoing Senate investigations into Justice Alito’s undisclosed gifts.

“In the worst case facts may reveal, Justice Alito was involved in an organized campaign to block congressional action with regard to a matter in which he has a personal stake.  Whether Justice Alito was unwittingly used to provide fodder for such interference, or intentionally participated, is a question whose answer requires additional facts,” wrote Senator Whitehouse to Chief Justice Roberts.

“As you have repeatedly emphasized, the Supreme Court should not be helpless when it comes to policing its own members’ ethical obligations.  But it is necessarily helpless if there is no process of fair fact-finding, nor independent decision-making,” continued Whitehouse.

“I request that you as Chief Justice, or through the Judicial Conference, take whatever steps are necessary to investigate this affair and provide the public with prompt and trustworthy answers,” concluded Whitehouse.

Whitehouse’s ethics complaint lays out five ways in which Justice Alito appears to have violated the canons of judicial ethics and the Supreme Court’s Statement of Ethics Principles and Practice, to which all sitting justices claimed to subscribe:

  1. Improper Opining on a Legal Issue that May Come Before the Court;
  2. Improper Intrusion into a Specific Matter;
  3. Improper Intrusion into a Specific Matter at the Behest of Counsel in that Matter;
  4. Improper Intrusion into a Specific Matter Involving an Undisclosed Personal Relationship; and
  5. Improper Use of Judicial Office for Personal Benefit.

  

Reporting from ProPublica in June found that Justice Alito accepted private jet travel to an all-expenses-paid Alaskan fishing vacation from hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer.  Singer, who has contributed over $80 million to Republican political organizations, subsequently had business before the Court.  Alito’s luxury vacation was organized by Leonard Leo, the engineer for a cadre of right-wing billionaires of the current right-wing Supreme Court supermajority.  Alito’s lodging on the vacation was provided by the billionaire Robin Arkley II, who funded the launch of Leo’s primary advocacy group in the Court-capture effort, the “Judicial Crisis Network.”  Alito did not disclose these gifts on his annual financial disclosure report, as required by federal law.

Justice Alito preemptively responded to ProPublica’s reporting in an unusual, defensive op-ed in the Wall Street Journal before ProPublica published its findings.  In the op-ed, Alito argued that a private jet should be considered a “facility” and that a seat on a private plane that would otherwise be empty is fair to accept without reporting on financial disclosure filings.

Whitehouse and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) wrote to Leo, Singer, and Arkley in July seeking to identify the full extent of payments or gifts of travel and lodging given to Supreme Court justices.  Leo, through his lawyer David Rivkin, rejected the Committee’s request for information, arguing that “the inquiry exceeds the limits placed by the Constitution on the Committee’s investigative authority.”

Days after the Senate Judiciary Committee passed Whitehouse's Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, Justice Alito, in a bizarre interview with Leonard Leo’s lawyer David Rivkin, stated: “I know this is a controversial view, but I’m willing to say it.  No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”  Justice Alito’s comments to Rivkin track closely to what Rivkin argued to the Committee on Leo’s behalf.

Judiciary Committee Democrats wrote a letter the following week asking the Chief Justice to take appropriate steps to ensure that Justice Alito will recuse himself in any future cases concerning legislation that regulates the Court. 

Whitehouse lodged today’s formal complaint as the author of the legislation at issue, and as the only Senator serving in the majority on both the Senate Finance and Judiciary Committees which are investigating ethical mishaps by Supreme Court justices.  Whitehouse lodged the complaint as a letter to the Chief Justice because, unlike every other federal court, the Supreme Court has no formal process for receiving or investigating such complaints. Whitehouse urged that this complaint be used to forge a proper complaint procedure meeting the due process fundamentals of fair fact-finding and independent decision-making. 

Full text of the ethics complaint is below and a PDF can be found here.

The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr.

Chief Justice of the United States

Chairman, Judicial Conference of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

1 First Street NE

Washington, D.C.  20543

Dear Chief Justice/Chairman Roberts:

I write to lodge an ethics complaint regarding recent public comments by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, which appear to violate several canons of judicial ethics, including standards the Supreme Court has long applied to itself.

I write to you in your capacity both as Chief Justice and as Chair of the Judicial Conference because, unlike every other federal court, the Supreme Court has no formal process for receiving or investigating such complaints, and asserted violations by justices of relevant requirements have sometimes been referred to the Judicial Conference and its committees.  I include all justices in carbon copy because I am urging the Supreme Court to adopt a uniform process to address this complaint and others that may arise against any justice in the future.

The recent actions by Justice Alito present an opportunity to determine a mechanism for applying the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act to justices of the Supreme Court.  Nothing prohibits the Court or the Judicial Conference from adopting procedures to address complaints of misconduct.  The most basic modicum of any due process is fair fact-finding; second to that is independent decision-making. 

Background

Some of the background facts here were related by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee who signed a letter to you dated August 3, 2023.[1]  As that letter explains, the Wall Street Journal on July 28, 2023, published an interview with Justice Alito conducted by David Rivkin and James Taranto.  Justice Alito’s comments during that interview give rise this complaint.[2]  The interview had the effect, and seemed intended, to bear both on legislation I authored and on investigations in which I participate.

During the interview, Justice Alito stated that “[n]o provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court—period.”[3]  Justice Alito’s comments appeared in connection to my Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee had advanced just one week before the publication of this interview.[4]  That bill would update judicial ethics laws to ensure the Supreme Court complies with ethical standards at least as demanding as in other branches of government. 

Justice Alito’s comments echoed legal arguments made to block information requests from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Finance Committee, on both of which I serve.  Those arguments assert (in my view wrongly) that our constitutional separation of powers blocks any congressional action in this area, which in turn is asserted (also wrongly, in my view) to block any congressional investigation.  Sound or unsound, it is their argument against our investigations, as reflected in the letter appended hereto.  The subject of these committee investigations is dozens of unreported gifts donated to justices of the Supreme Court.  

As the author of the bill at issue, and as the only Senator serving in the majority on both investigating committees, I bring this complaint.

Improper Opining on a Legal Issue that May Come Before the Court

On the Senate Judiciary Committee, we have heard in every recent confirmation hearing that it would be improper to express opinions on matters that might come before the Court.  In this instance, Justice Alito expressed an opinion on a matter that could well come before the Court.

That conduct seems indisputably to violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.  Canon 1 emphasizes a judge’s obligation to “uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary”; Canon 2(A) instructs judges to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary”; and Canon 3(A)(6) provides that judges “should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”  These canons help ensure “the integrity and independence of the judiciary” by requiring judges’ conduct to be at all times consistent with the preservation of judicial impartiality and the appearance thereof.[5] 

The Court’s Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices, “to which all of the current members of the Supreme Court subscribe,”[6] concurs.  That document makes clear that, before speaking to the public, “a Justice should consider whether doing so would create an appearance of impropriety in the minds of reasonable members of the public.  There is an appearance of impropriety when an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant facts would doubt that the Justice could fairly discharge his or her duties.”[7]  These same precepts are also enforced through the federal recusal statute, which requires all federal justices and judges to recuse themselves from any matter in which their impartiality could reasonably be questioned.[8] 

Making public comments assessing the merits of a legal issue that could come before the Court undoubtedly creates the very appearance of impropriety these rules are meant to protect against.  As Justice Kavanaugh pointed out, prejudging an issue in this manner is “inconsistent with judicial independence, rooted in Article III,” because “litigants who come before [the Court] have to know we have an open mind, that we do not have a closed mind.”[9]

Justice Alito and every other sitting member of the Supreme Court told the Senate Judiciary Committee during their confirmation hearings that it would be (in the words of Justice Alito) “improper” and a “disservice to the judicial process” for a Supreme Court nominee to comment on issues that might come before the Court.[10]  Justice Thomas said that such comments would at minimum “leave the impression that I prejudged this issue,” which would be “inappropriate for any judge who is worth his or her salt.”[11]  Justice Kagan echoed those comments, telling the Committee it would be “inappropriate” for her to “give any indication of how she would rule in a case”—even “in a somewhat veiled manner.”[12]  And Justice Kavanaugh explained that nominees “cannot discuss cases or issues that might come before them.”  He continued:  “As Justice Ginsburg said, no hints, no forecasts, no previews.”[13]  

Justice Gorsuch made clear during his confirmation hearing that this rule applies to the precise topic on which Justice Alito opined to the Wall Street Journal:

Senator Blumenthal.  Thank you.  I also want to raise a question, talking about court procedure, relating to conflicts of interest and ethics.  I think you were asked yesterday about the proposed ethics rules that have been applied to your court—

Judge Gorsuch.  Yes.

Senator Blumenthal:  [continuing].  To the appellate court, to the District Court, but not to the Supreme Court.  Would you view such legislation as a violation of the separation of powers?

Judge Gorsuch.  Senator, I am afraid I just have to respectfully decline to comment on that because I am afraid that could be a case or controversy, and you can see how it might be.  I can understand Congress’ concern and interest in this area.  I understand that.  But I think the proper way to test that question is the prescribed process of legislation and litigation.[14]

You, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Barrett each expressly cited the canons of judicial ethics as the source of a nominee’s obligation to refuse to comment on such matters.[15]  There seems to be no question that Justice Alito is bound by, and that his opining violated, these principles.[16] 

Improper Intrusion into a Specific Matter

These principles apply broadly to any opining, on any issue that might perhaps come before the Court.  But here it was worse; it was not just general opining, it was opining in relation to a specific ongoing dispute.  The quote at issue in the article—“No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court”—directly follows a mention of my judicial ethics bill.  Justice Alito’s decision to opine publicly on the constitutionality of that bill may well embolden legal challenges to the bill should it become law.  Indeed, his comments encourage challenges to all manner of judicial ethics laws already on the books.

Justice Alito’s opining will also fuel obstruction of our Senate investigations into these matters.  To inform its work on my bill and other judicial ethics legislation, and oversee the performance of the statutory Judicial Conference in this arena, the Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating multiple reports that Supreme Court justices have accepted and failed to disclose lavish gifts from billionaire benefactors.[17]  Separately, the Senate Finance Committee is investigating the federal tax considerations surrounding the billionaires’ undisclosed gifts to Supreme Court justices.[18]  Both committees’ inquiries have been stymied by individuals asserting that Congress has no constitutional authority to legislate in this area, hence no authority to investigate.  Justice Alito’s public comments prop up these theories.[19]

As the author of the bill in question and as a participant in the related investigations, I feel acutely the targeting of this work by Justice Alito, and consider it more than just misguided or accidental general opining.  It is directed to my work.

Improper Intrusion into a Specific Matter at the Behest of Counsel in that Matter

Compounding the issues above, Attorney David Rivkin was one of the interviewers in the Wall Street Journal piece, and also a lawyer in the above dispute.  This dual role suggests that Justice Alito may have opined on this matter at the behest of Mr. Rivkin himself.  Bad enough that a justice opines on some general matter that may come before the Court; worse when the opining brings his influence to bear in a specific ongoing legal dispute; worse still when the influence of a justice appears to have been summoned by counsel to a party in that dispute.

The timeline of the Wall Street Journal interview suggests that its release was coordinated with Mr. Rivkin’s efforts to block our inquiry.  Mr. Rivkin’s interview with Justice Alito was reportedly conducted in “early July” 2023.[20]  On July 11, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Durbin and I sent a letter to Mr. Rivkin’s client inquiring about undisclosed gifts and travel provided to justices.[21]  On July 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance my judicial ethics bill mentioned above.  (Notably, the Rivkin/Alito Congress-has-no-authority argument fared poorly in the committee that day, with no Republican rising to rebut the arguments against it.)  On July 25, Mr. Rivkin by letter refused to provide the requested information on the purported ground that “any attempt by Congress to enact ethics standards for the Supreme Court would falter on constitutional objections.”[22]  That response, appended hereto, was instantly published in Fox News.[23]  Three days later, on July 28, the Wall Street Journal editorial page published the supportive opining from Justice Alito.[24] 

Improper Intrusion into a Specific Matter Involving an Undisclosed Personal Relationship 

On top of all this, the dispute upon which Justice Alito opined involves an individual with whom Justice Alito has a longstanding personal and political relationship.  As my colleagues and I pointed out in our August 3 letter, “Mr. Rivkin is counsel for Leonard Leo with regard to [the Judiciary] Committee’s investigation into Mr. Leo’s actions to facilitate gifts of free transportation and lodging that Justice Alito accepted from Paul Singer and Robin Arkley II in 2008.”[25]  Mr. Leo was Justice Alito’s companion on the luxurious Alaskan fishing trip in 2008 and facilitated the gifts to the justice of free transportation and lodging.  Two years earlier, Mr. Leo’s political organization “had run an advertising campaign supporting Alito in his confirmation fight, and Leo was reportedly part of the team that prepared Alito for his Senate hearings.”[26]

The timing of Justice Alito’s opining suggests that he intervened to give his friend and political ally support in his effort to block congressional inquiries.  It appears that Justice Alito (a) opined (b) on a specific ongoing dispute (c) at the behest of counsel in that dispute (d) to the benefit of a personal friend and ally.  Each is objectionable, and appears to violate, inter alia, Canon 2(B) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which provides, “A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge.”

Improper Use of Judicial Office for Personal Benefit 

The final unpleasant fact in this affair is that Justice Alito’s opining, apparently at the behest of his friend and ally’s lawyer, props up an argument being used to block inquiry into undisclosed gifts and travel received by Justice Alito.  At the end, Justice Alito is the beneficiary of his own improper opining.  This implicates Canon 2(B) strictures against improperly using one’s office to further a personal interest:  a justice obstructing a congressional investigation that implicates his own conduct. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation encompasses reports that Justice Alito accepted but did not disclose gifts of travel and lodging valued in the tens of thousands of dollars.  Further investigation may reveal additional information that Justice Alito would prefer not come to light.  The facts as already reported suggest that Justice Alito likely violated the financial disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act.[27]  Perhaps Justice Alito should also have recused himself as required by the recusal statute in a 2014 case involving a company owned by Paul Singer, one of the billionaires who attended and paid for his Alaskan fishing vacation.[28]  Justice Alito’s public suggestion that these laws are unconstitutional as applied to the Supreme Court, and that Congress lacks authority to amend them or investigate their implementation or enforcement, appears designed to impede Senate efforts to investigate these and other potential abuses.

*          *          *

Conclusion

In the worst case facts may reveal, Justice Alito was involved in an organized campaign to block congressional action with regard to a matter in which he has a personal stake.  Whether Justice Alito was unwittingly used to provide fodder for such interference, or intentionally participated, is a question whose answer requires additional facts.  The heart of any due process is a fair determination of the facts.  Uniquely in the whole of government, the Supreme Court has insulated its justices from any semblance of fair fact-finding.  The obstructive campaign run by Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Leo, fueled by Justice Alito’s opining, appears intended to prevent Congress from gathering precisely those facts.

As you have repeatedly emphasized, the Supreme Court should not be helpless when it comes to policing its own members’ ethical obligations.  But it is necessarily helpless if there is no process of fair fact-finding, nor independent decision-making.  I request that you as Chief Justice, or through the Judicial Conference, take whatever steps are necessary to investigate this affair and provide the public with prompt and trustworthy answers.

Press Contact

Meaghan McCabe, (202) 224-2921




Agree with Whitehouse.  Alito's not the most crooked only because Crooked Clarence Thomas also serves on the Court.  On Crooked Clarence, Amul Thapar has been defending him non-stop.  Including in his book THE PEOPLE'S JUSTICE: CLARENCE THOMAS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL STORIES THAT DEFINE HIM.  The problem?  Thapar is a sitting judge, he sits on the Federal Appeals Court.  Why is that a problem?  Steven Lubet (THE HILL) explains:

Many judges and justices have written books, of course. This is encouraged as an “extrajudicial activity” under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, adopted by the lower federal courts in 1973. Thapar’s ethical problem, however, is that he appears to have made extensive use of his publicly funded judicial clerks for his writing, which is specifically prohibited by the code. 

In his acknowledgments, Thapar thanked by name his five “current law clerks” who “volunteered their time and provided me with essential help in researching, editing, and, perhaps most important, thinking about the cases.”  

Such assignments to judicial employees could violate Canon 4G of the Code, which provides that, “a judge should not to any substantial degree use judicial chambers, resources, or staff to engage in extrajudicial activities.” The five clerks’ involvement can certainly be seen as “substantial,” given that, as Thapar put it, “When emergencies arose or I just needed some advice, all five would volunteer to help, day or night.” Thapar has described his favored writing times as “7:00 to 11:00 at night, and 3:00 to 7:00 in the morning,” consistently outside any clerk’s regular working hours. 


"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Tuesday, September 5, 2023. Iraq's high court nullifies the border agreement with Kuwait, it also prevents a handover the prime minister had announced, Australian politicians prepare to visit the United States to call for Julian Assange's release, Ronald DeSantis continues to struggle on the campaign trail.


Starting in Iraq where its overzealous Supreme Court has been churning out verdicts.  Esra Tekin (ANADOLU AGENCY) reports:

Iraq's Federal Supreme Court decided Monday to invalidate a maritime border agreement with Kuwait under which the two countries shared a key waterway in the Gulf.

The decision against the Khor Abdullah agreement followed a trial related to an ongoing dispute over the deal, which was signed in 2012 and ratified in 2013 and concerned maritime borders and navigation regulations.

The court cited its inconsistency with the Iraqi Constitution, which mandates approval through legislation passed with a two-thirds majority in parliament, said a statement.

Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 833 in 1993 which determined the land border between Iraq and Kuwait.

However, the delineation of the maritime border was left to the two countries.


As we've noted before -- most often with regards to Iraq and Iran -- neighboring countries and Iraq never can agree on borders.   This one had been in place for over a decade but now is being tossed aside. 

Kirkuk and the Iraqi court were in the news over the weekend. Oil-rich Kirkuk?  Julian Bechocha (RUDAW) explains:


Kirkuk is a multiethnic city home to Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen, as well as an Assyrian minority. The city was under joint administration before 2014, when Kurds took full control after Iraqi forces withdrew in the face of a brazen offensive by the Islamic State (ISIS) group threatening the city. Kurds held Kirkuk until October 16, 2017, when Iraqi forces retook control and expelled Kurdish security forces following the Kurdistan Regional Government’s (KRG) independence referendum. While other Kurdish political parties remain active in Kirkuk, the KDP refused to return, saying the city was “occupied” by Shiite militias.


  Chenar Chalak (RUDAW) sexplained


An order from [Iraq's prime minister] Sudani in August asked the JOC to evacuate their offices in Kirkuk and hand them over to the KDP to allow the Kurdish party to resume its political activities in the province. The buildings were used by the KDP prior to the expulsion of the Peshmerga forces from Kirkuk in October 2017 when Iraq's Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) gained control of the province.

Sudani’s decision was strongly rejected by the PMF and their supporters, who set up tents and held sit-in protests near the JOC headquarters in Kirkuk, blocking the main Kirkuk-Erbil highway and vowing to continue demonstrations until the Iraqi premier revokes his decision and leaves the matter to the judiciary. The protesters claimed that the KDP’s return would be detrimental to the province’s security.

Footage emerged on social media depicting the PMF protesters disrespecting the flag of the Kurdistan Region and Kirkuk’s Peshmerga statue located near the JOC headquarters, further enraging the city’s Kurdish population who were already frustrated with the ongoing blockage of the key highway for nearly a week.


In the leadup to this handover, IANS notes, clashes began taking place, "The Arabs and Turkmens have been protesting over the past few days against the return of the KDP, including blocking streets, setting tyres on fire, and staging a sit-in outside the building to prevent the KDP from reclaiming their headquarters."  






Saturday, the clashes turned extremely violent and at least four people (Kurds) were killed with over a dozen more left injured.  Following that, Kirkuk was placed on curfew Saturday night.  The curfew was only lifted after the Supreme Court weighed in the following day.   REUTERS reports:


Iraq's federal supreme court issued an urgent temporary ruling on Sunday obliging the government to delay procedures regarding the handover of a building in Kirkuk to the KDP, the state news agency reported.

The court ruling halted an order issued by Prime Minister Mohammed al-Sudani in his capacity as the commander-in-chief of Iraq's armed forces to hand over the army building to the KDP on September 1, according to a copy of the ruling seen by Reuters.


Not everyone fell into silent agreement.  ALJAZEERA reports:


Masoud Barzani, a veteran Kurdish leader, accused “rioters” of blocking the highway from Kirkuk to Erbil, the Kurdish capital, with their sit-in.

He said this was “creating a tense and dangerous situation for residents”.

Barzani said it was “surprising” that security forces had not prevented “the chaos and illegal behaviour of those blocking the road”, while on Saturday, “violence was used against Kurdish youth and demonstrators”.


  KURDISTAN 24 reports:


Kurdistan Region Prime Minister Masrour Barzani described the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court’s Sunday decision on recovering the Kurdistan Democratic Party’s (KDP) former headquarters in Kirkuk as a “farce”.

“Today's ‘federal court’ decision is a farce,” Barzani wrote on X platform, formerly known as Twitter.

[. . .] 

Kurdistan Region Prime Minister Masrour Barzani on Sunday ordered the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Ministry of Martyrs and Anfal Affairs to register the killed protestors in Kirkuk as “martyrs” and provide medical assistance to the wounded, the spokesperson announced.


THE NATIONAL quote Barzani point out, "It's surprising that in the past few days security forces in Kirkuk did not prevent the violence and illegal behaviour of some groups, but today the Kurdish protesters were faced with violence and (the) blood of Kurdish youth was spilt, and it will carry a heavy price."


Turning to the topic of Julian Assange, the journalist who exposed War Crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Julian remains persecuted by US President Joe Biden for the 'crime' of journalism as the world watches.  Now, however, some members of his country's government are not just speaking out from Australia, they are planning on traveling to the United States.





Heloise Vyas (SKY NEWS) reports:

A delegation of Australian politicians from across the board will travel to the United States in September to lobby against the extradition of Julian Assange from a London prison.

The contingent is set to visit Washington DC to meet with top US diplomats and urge the government to end its prosecution bid, following years of unsuccessful intervention attempts to free the WikiLeaks founder.

MPs spanning the political spectrum, including Barnaby Joyce from the National Party, Tony Zappia from Labor, Alex Antic from the Liberals, independent MP Monique Ryan and David Shoebridge and Peter Whish-Walson from the Greens, will be part of the lobby group.

“Australians are united in their view that this matter must come to an end now,” Assange Campaign group’s legal advisor Greg Barns said in a media release.


THE FAMAGUSTA GAZETTE quotes Gabriel Shipton (Julian's brother), "The vast majority of Australians can't understand why the U.S. continues to act in a way that keeps Julian locked up in one of the worst prisons in the UK.  Even Australians who didn't support Julian's actions believe he has suffered enough and should be set free immediately."  His brother also Tweeted:



If Julian's going to be set free (and he should be), it's going to require pressure from the Australian government.  



Patrick Bell (Australia's ABC) explains, "The parliamentary delegation will include former Nationals leader Barnaby Joyce, Labor MP Tony Zappia, Liberal senator Alex Antic, independent MP Monique Ryan, and Greens senators David Shoebridge and Peter Whish-Wilson."
AAP notes, "The delegation will meet with members of Congress and Senate, the US State Department and the Department of Justice. They will also meet with think tanks and organisations including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Reporters Without Borders."



Should he be deported from the U.K., Julian Assange, the Australian publisher of WikiLeaks, faces up to 175 years in a U.S. prison on charges related to his release of information that revealed U.S. war crimes and torture. His legal team has stated that they plan to appeal the extradition case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, France, arguing that the British litigation process has been rife with malpractice.

However, experts say, there is little likelihood that Assange, who is currently being detained without British charges at London’s Belmarsh Prison pending extradition, will be allowed to physically attend any ECHR hearings in Strasbourg, which lies in France’s Alsace region.

“The U.K. authorities’ case against bail has always been that he is ‘a significant flight risk’ and a reminder of his seven years in the Ecuadorian embassy,” Tim Dawson of the International Federation of Journalists, a group opposing Assange’s detention, told Truthout. “I can’t see that they are going to allow anything similar to arise.”



In other news, today on NPR's MORNING EDITION, Ashley Lopez notes Ronald DeSantis' campaign for the Republican Party's presidential campaign which continues to struggle for support. Or maybe it's just the focus on smearing others.  That's LGBTQ+ people, that's African-Americans, Democrats . . . He can't even stop smearing his fellow Republicans.  Josh Christenson (NEW YORK POST) reports, "The strategist for a super PAC for Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has privately boasted to donors that his group is behind recent negative press about GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy, a new report says."  Ben Blanchet (HUFFINGTON POST) adds:

“Every misstatement, every 360 he’s conducting or 180 that he is going through in life, is from our scrutiny and pressure. And so, he’s not going to go through that very well, and that will get worse for him,” said Jeff Roe of the DeSantis-supporting Never Back Down super PAC in audio obtained by the news organization.

Meanwhile, Ronald looked even less like a leader than usual when he refused to stand with the president in surveying the state of Florida and its recent damage from the hurricane.




The criticism has been building over the long weekend.  Ben Blanchet notes:

Former Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) pointed out Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ “absolutely outrageous” move to not meet with President Joe Biden in the aftermath of Hurricane Idalia.

In a CNN appearance Friday, Kinzinger criticized the Florida governor, who had expressed logistical concerns over Biden’s trip to survey hurricane damage and remarked that the visit could be “very disruptive.”

“There’s a 1 to 2% chance it’s logistics, there’s a 98 to 99% chance it’s the optics,” Kinzinger told CNN’s John Berman.




Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been accused of "petty politics" after he snubbed President Joe Biden when he visited the state on Saturday to survey the damage caused by Hurricane Idalia.

DeSantis and Biden met when the president toured Florida after Hurricane Ian hit the state last year, and in the aftermath of the Surfside condo collapse in Miami Beach in 2021.

The pair have been speaking regularly this week about Idalia, but DeSantis avoided being photographed with Biden as he visited Florida on Saturday.

[. . .]

"In times of crisis, the American people expect our leaders to put aside their differences and find strength in unity," said Nikki Fried, chair of the Florida Democratic Party "By refusing to meet with President Biden, he's proving again what we've known for years—Ron will always put politics over people. I hope his fundraisers in Iowa are worth it."

Victor Shi, a Gen-Z activist and Biden supporter, said media reports should make clear that it was DeSantis who refused to meet with Biden and not the other way around.


Let's wind down with this Tweet from Paul Rudnick.




Sunday, Kat's "Kat's Korner: Hozier takes you on a trip" went up.  The following sites updated: