Light for Liberty …Thomas Jefferson … Ignorant and Free Never Will Be

Subversion of Democracy through the Courts

Truth and Light




Justice FBI




Another institution being manipulated attacked maligned and weakened.



The U.S. Supreme Court Can Still Take Big Money Out of Politics


Why Don’t Supreme Court Justices Have an Ethics Code? April 11 2018


Of the 4 million employees who work for the federal government, 11 of the highest-ranking ones are not bound by some of the ethics laws, rules and regulations which other public servants must follow: the president, the vice president, and the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

All other federal judges are subject to a published official “Code of Conduct for United States Judges,” which applies to all employees of the Judicial Branch’s Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The code includes specific rules about ethics, integrity and even appearances of impropriety relating to outside business and political activities and the acceptance of gifts.

“When we do a Supreme Court justice, we want to know about their background in the law and everything that they know,” said U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter of New York, an 87-year-old Democrat. “Nobody ever asks them, ‘Are you an honest person?’”

Slaughter has been waging a long battle to pass a bill that she says would make the justices more transparent about and accountable for conduct outside the Court.

Slaughter has been sponsoring legislation since 2013 that would require the nation’s highest Court to create and follow a code of ethics.

Her bill is called “The Supreme Court Ethics Act.” Last Wednesday, she reintroduced it for the third time.


Supreme Court Justice Kennedy retiring, giving Trump a second pick on the high court June 27 2018

However, he also has been a key vote when conservatives have won major rulings on the outcome of the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush, on gun rights, limiting regulation of campaign money and gutting a key provision of the landmark federal Voting Rights Act.

There were no outward signs that Kennedy was getting ready to retire. He had hired his allotment of four law clerks for the term that begins in October and he is planning to spend part of the summer as he typically does, teaching a law school class in Salzburg, Austria.

But several former law clerks have said that Kennedy, a nominee of President Ronald Reagan, preferred to be replaced by a Republican. If he had waited, and if Democrats had taken control of the Senate in November, Trump could have found it more difficult to get his choice confirmed.

Few obstacles seem to stand in the way of confirming Kennedy’s replacement before the court reconvenes in October. Republicans changed the rules during Gorsuch’s confirmation to wipe out the main delaying tactic for Supreme Court nominees, the filibuster, and the need for 60 votes to defeat it.


“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Quotations on the Jefferson Memorial


The Dark Money Behind Trump’s Supreme Court Pick July 10  2018

There is something revoltingly un-American about a man who stands with his wife and two young daughters to accept the nomination for the highest court in America, talks about feeding the homeless and coaching girls’ basketball – all the while knowing that a lot of very dirty corporate money lurks in the shadows of his nomination.


We’re talking about the fact that Trump made his Supreme Court nominee selection of Brett Kavanaugh from a list that was pre-approved by the Federalist Society – a receptacle for the dark money that flows from the billionaire Charles Koch’s network of corporate polluters and democracy-killing front groups that got the Supreme Court to rubber stamp unlimited corporate money in political campaigns via the Citizens United decision in 2010.


Indicted Russian Company Relentlessly Trolls Mueller by Invoking Kavanaugh July 18 2018

One of the Russian companies indicted by special counsel Robert Mueller for its alleged involvement in a troll farm scheme has littered a recent motion to dismiss with a number of citations to President Donald Trump‘s Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Appellate Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

In a lengthy memo accompanying the motion and proposed order, Judge Kavanaugh is referenced nine times in total.

Kavanaugh wrote [emphasis in original]:

“[W]e caution the government that seeking criminal penalties for violations of [laws regulating foreign nationals’ political contributions or expenditures] will require proof of defendant’s knowledge of the law…There are many aliens in this country who no doubt are unaware of the statutory ban on foreign expenditures


At Tuesday’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy accused President Donald Trump’s nominee Brett Kavanaugh of providing misleading testimony about his time with the Bush administration.

The Many Mysteries of Brett Kavanaugh’s Finances

Who made the down payment on his house?How did he come up with $92,000 in country club fees?

The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too. September 28 2018


How Brett Kavanaugh Made Russian Election Interference Easier and Robert Mueller’s Job Harder

The Supreme Court nominee gutted part of a law that prevented foreign influence in US elections. Sept 5 2018


In Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, Kavanaugh wrote for a three-judge panel that people who are not citizens or legal permanent residents cannot contribute directly to campaigns or to “express advocacy” work, which explicitly asks voters to support or oppose a specific candidate. But he gutted the portion of the law that banned foreign spending that is not “express advocacy.” Following his ruling, some of the ads paid for by the Russians in 2016 and named in the February indictment—featuring such messages as “Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Deserve the Black Vote” and “Hillary is Satan, and her crimes and lies had proved just how evil she is”—may well be legal foreign influence activity.

Justin Levitt, an election law expert and former Justice Department official during the Obama administration, says that when it comes to most noncitizens, “Congress said you may not give money or spend money in an attempt to influence an election. Period. Kavanaugh implemented a huge carveout.”

The ramifications of this decision are evident not only in the lack of campaign-related charges in the February indictment; one of the indicted companies repeatedly cited Kavanaugh’s ruling in a court filing seeking to get the existing charges against it dismissed. During the 2016 presidential campaign, Concord Management and Consulting, which is controlled by a Russian oligarch close to President Vladimir Putin, allegedly spent $1.25 million per month to set up rallies, spread disinformation, and “interfere in U.S. political and electoral processes without detection of their Russian affiliation,” according to the indictment. For this, Concord was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States.

Now, the company is now using Kavanaugh’s decision in Bluman to try to have the charge dismissed on the grounds that its activity was legal. “Foreign nationals are not barred from issue advocacy through political speech such as what is described in the indictment—they are only precluded from willfully making expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate,” the company’s lawyers wrote. Election law expert Rick Hasen of the University of California, Irvine School of Law told the Washington Post in July that Kavanaugh’s decision creates “potentially a huge loophole for foreign and undisclosed issue ads on federal elections.”


Kavanaugh “wiped out a big chunk of a congressional statute without ever explaining why,” says Levitt. “It looks like redrafting a statute to do something he likes better, rather than issue a constitutional holding. And that’s not something we want our judges to do.”

Update: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) asked Kavanaugh about this case during his confirmation hearing Wednesday afternoon, noting that his opinion “left open the possibility of unlimited spending by foreign nationals” on issue advocacy in US elections and that a Russian company was citing it in its defense against Mueller’s indictment. In response, Kavanaugh appeared confused by the question, appearing not to remember this part of his opinion or to be aware of its ramifications.

David Brock I knew Brett Kavanaugh during his years as a Republican operative. Don’t let him sit on the Supreme Court.

We were part of a close circle of cynical hard-right operatives being groomed for much bigger things.

Top Catholic Magazine Revokes Kavanaugh Endorsement After ‘Illegitimate’ Hearing        9 28 2018

The American Bar Association had concerns about Kavanaugh 12 years ago. Republicans dismissed those, too. September 28 2018




Sept 30 2018   Flake and Coons troubled by Kavanaughs Partisanship


John Oliver calls BS on Brett Kavanaugh for mischaracterizing evidence – judge should know not to do Sept 30 2018


September 30 2018

Brett Kavanaugh proves he’s unfit for Supreme Court

He displayed angry juvenal behavior and showed he is totally partisan bring up “Clinton conspiracy” theories. Not ready for prime time and not being exactly truthful about his drinking. We can do better.


Brett Kavanaugh Slapped With Two Official Ethics Complaints in Merrick Garland’s Jurisdiction


Contrary to Conservative Claims, Corroborating Evidence Exists for Christine Blasey Ford’s Allegations

Either conservatives don’t understand what “corroborating evidence” mean, or they’re lying about it in order to mislead their supporters.

‘Unfathomable’: More than 2,400 law professors sign letter opposing Kavanaugh’s confirmation Oct 4 2018


More than 2,400 law professors have signed on to a letter saying that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial restraint at a Senate hearing last week — behavior that would be disqualifying for any court nominee.


Harcourt said they signed out of concern about a rush to judgment, in the belief that for the Senate to elevate Kavanaugh “without full information and deliberation to the Supreme Court would undermine the respect owed” to the institution.


“We have differing views about the other qualifications of Judge Kavanaugh,” they wrote. “But we are united, as professors of law and scholars of judicial institutions, in believing that Judge Kavanaugh did not display the impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land. “‘


More than 2,400 law professors have signed on to a letter saying that Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh displayed a lack of judicial restraint at a Senate hearing last week — behavior that would be disqualifying for any court nominee.



ABA urges Kavanaugh vote be delayed until after a full FBI investigation Sept 27 2018



With accusations against Brett Kavanaugh evoking memories of another Supreme Court confirmation battle, law professor and author Anita Hill says that a professional investigation is needed to ensure a fair hearing.     September 19 2018





Sen. Richard Blumenthal condemns attack on rule of law in Kavanaugh hearing Setember 4 2018


Sept 6 2018


Published on Sep 6, 2018

September 7 2018

September 7 2018 Senator Mazie Hirono

September 7 2018

Ronan Farrow details new allegations against Brett Kavanaugh Sept 24 2018

Third woman accuses Kavanaugh of misconduct September 26 2018








ABA_MCJC_approved.authcheckdam  pdf


[1] An independent, fair and impartial judiciary is indispensable to our system of justice. The United States legal system is based upon the principle that an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary, composed of men and women of integrity, will interpret and apply the law that governs our society. Thus, the judiciary plays a central role in preserving the principles of justice and the rule of law. Inherent in all the Rules contained in this Code are the precepts that judges, individually and collectively, must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.

[2] Judges should maintain the dignity of judicial office at all times, and avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in their professional and personal lives. They should aspire at all times to conduct that ensures the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence.

[3] The Model Code of Judicial Conduct establishes standards for the ethical conduct of judges and judicial candidates. It is not intended as an exhaustive guide for the conduct of judges and judicial candidates, who are governed in their judicial and personal conduct by general ethical standards as well as by the Code. The Code is intended, however, to provide guidance and assist judges in maintaining the highest standards of judicial and personal conduct, and to provide a basis for regulating their conduct through disciplinary agencies.



RULE 1.2

Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.



Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.


A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.


Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity,and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.


Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers,support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.


Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge’s honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.


A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.




Rule 2.15: Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct

(A) A judge having knowledge* that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.*

(B) A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.

(C) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action.

(D) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct shall take appropriate action.


Rule 2.4: External Influences on Judicial Conduct

(A) A judge shall not be swayed by public clamor or fear of criticism.

(B) A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.

(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.