Jonathan ErnstGetty Images
On Tuesday evening, when no one was watching, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, took to the floor of the Senate to once again examine the impact of black money on the federal judiciary, and specifically its effect on the carefully constructed new, 6-3 Conservative majority in The Supreme Court of the United States.
Now the vast majority of 6 to 3 donors selected to the Court are making huge gains for these donor interests. The American people can smell what Judge Sotomayor aptly described as the scent of a detained court.
But Whitehouse’s path to his argument was new. In his remarks, he targeted the ludicrous Toothless panel set up by the administration, allegedly to study problems with the federal judiciary. These problems, of course, resulted in large part from the deluge of black money in the stabilization process, and most of it comes from economic and ideological sources that have extensive work before the court. However, the belated commission chose to deal, in Whitehouse’s words, “a college-break Babylon.”
Yes, they did point out the need for an ethical code for judges which makes sense since Supreme Court justices have the lowest morale of any senior federal official, but pointing out that is a bit like pointing out a punctured framework in the aggregate. the cars. Consider the facts the commission ignored. The Federal Assembly, an anonymously funded private party organization, chose the last three justices of the Supreme Court. President Trump and his White House adviser admitted that they gave the White House their word on the Federal Assembly.
Senator Hatch, our former colleague, the former head of the judiciary, was asked if this role had been assigned to the Federal Assembly and said it was a cursed right. No other democracy in the world has such a ridiculous system for selecting judges. This is bad. It gets worse. The anonymous donations helped right-wing groups pay $400 million to seize and control the court, with a lack of transparency over who gave the money. Or more importantly, what matters they were exposed to before the court they appointed judges. This is a shame. And trust me, nobody spends $400 million without a motive.
Whitehouse’s case is so obvious that it’s almost a beggar. As he pointed out, the previous administration *wasn’t shy about frankly admitting the truth of what Whitehouse said. The newer ex-President* didn’t *know enough about law and jurisprudence to land a cat, as the great Sean O’Foulin once described it in another context. He was more than happy to smile and slap his nominees in the back while Mitch McConnell blew up the Senate confirmation process to install the Federal Triple Ball Club into the federal community where it could be more beneficial to conservative donors and less beneficial to the country. After all, it started a bad influx of money that destroyed the foundations of our institutions while the ex-President was *still* still “shooting” people on his TV show.
The court issued its decision in United Nationals vs FEC In 2010, in the dark times before the birth of this blog. Indeed, besides shredding voting rights, demolishing campaign finance laws has been one of Chief Justice John Roberts’ primary passions since he first made his bones in conservative legal circles. (Two sides of the same coin, if you think about it.) A week from now, Senator Whitehouse and the rest of us might get another lesson on this phenomenon.
Next Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear the case FEC vs. Ted Cruz for the Senate. The subject of contention is the procedure by which candidates can lend money to their campaigns, then finalize the payment process in such a way that the successful candidate makes a profit while his influencers buy in. Ian Millheiser in Fox Explains how it works:
When a campaign receives a donation before an election, that donation is usually subject to strict rules that prevent it from being spent to enrich the candidate. However, after the election, the donors who provide money to help pay off a loan from the candidate effectively transfer that money to the candidate—who by then could be a powerful elected official.
Moreover, a legislator who has sufficiently skilled accountants, can effectively organize such a loan to allow lobbyists and other donors to help the legislator directly benefit from it. According to the Los Angeles Times, for example, in 1998 Representative Grace Napolitano (D-CA) provided a $150,000 loan to her campaign with an interest rate of 18% (although she later lowered the interest rate to 10%). As of 2009, it is reported that Napolitano Raise $221,780 to pay off this loan – $158,000 of it was classified as “interest.” So in 11 years, the loan is reported to have brought Napolitano close to $72,000 in profit.
Now comes Tailgunner Ted Cruz, who wants to get rid of those rules and restrictions on loan repayments to candidates for federal offices. I’m sure I don’t need a neon pink comment about the personal enrichment and promotional influence loophole because a decision in favor of Cruz’s campaign will open into campaign finance regulations that are already being eaten by moths. And one had to be on Mars for the past decade not to make Cruz the favourite when the court decision came. And that’s a good thing, because, as Millhiser mentioned, Tailgunner made this case specifically to blow up this specific regulatory apparatus.
According to the Ministry of Justice, the day before the 2018 elections, Cruz He loaned his campaign $260,000, or $10,000 more than can legally be repaid in post-election money. Furthermore, while a federal regulation allows the Cruz campaign to pay off all of this money using money raised prior to the election, as long as it did so no later than 20 days after the election, the campaign has waited until that deadline for a response has passed. $250,000 of the $260,000 loan.
And in case there is any doubt as to why Cruz and his campaign have entered into this unusual arrangement, Cruz and his campaign do not object that ” The sole and exclusive motive Behind Senator Cruz’s actions in granting the 2018 loan and the committee’s action pending its repayment was laying the realistic foundation for this challenge.” Cruz was essentially willing to risk $10,000 of his own money for a chance to repeal the federal anti-corruption law.
And in two years’ time, if he were still in office, and if rising seas did not take off Rhode Island toward Labrador, Sheldon Whitehouse would stand on the Senate floor and show again the corrupting effect of money on the appointment process for the Supreme Court that would then be tasked with ruling About the corrupting effect of money. The sewage wheel rotates in a “circular” manner.
This content is created and maintained by a third party, and is imported into this page to help users provide their email address. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io