United States Supreme Court is a Illegitimate Kangaroo Court

Republicans have hijacked the highest court in the land. First, they stole a Supreme Court seat from President Obama. Then, they changed a 70-year old rule to install two of Donald Trump’s far-right justices and confirmed Brett Kavanaugh despite credible allegations that he committed sexual assault and lied under oath.

Now, the politicized Supreme Court is enacting a far-right, partisan agenda that favors corporate interests and Republican Party special interests. Reproductive freedom, civil rights, environmental justice, common sense gun safety laws, and our right to vote are all at risk. And the Court is eroding confidence in our system of government with ethical lapses and lack of transparency.



Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse gives outstanding presentation how Big Business “Dark Money” has been playing a role in the Supreme Court nomination process.


Expert details the secretive ‘shadow network’ behind America’s Radical Right for the past 40 years


Supreme Court Justices should be appointed by Presidents who were elected to office by the majority of Americans so their viewpoints reflects the majority.

The United States Supreme is a Illegitimate Kangaroo Court because 5 of the Justices were appointed by Illegitimate Presidents NOT supported or elected to office by the majority of Americans.

  • The MAJORITY voted for Al Gore in 2000 by over 500,000 votes yet George W. Bush was crammed down the American Majority’s Throats. The election was STOLEN by the Electoral College, PLUS Florida Republicans illegally purged thousands of minorities off voters rolls and vote counting was stopped by the Republican Majority Supreme Court. The installation of George W. Bush caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis due to the misguided and unjustified war with Iraq. Trillions was added to the National Debt due to George W. Bush’s incompetence.
  • Bush appointed 2 Justices against the will of the MAJORITY = 2 Supreme Court Seats Stolen

  • Republicans STOLE a 3rd Supreme Court Seat from the American Majority by blocking President Obama’s Supreme Court appointment stating “The people should decide” during an election year.

  • The MAJORITY voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 by over 2.84 Million votes yet Donald Trump was crammed down the American Majority’s Throats. The election was once again STOLEN by the Electoral College which made the LOSER the “winner”.
  • Trump filled Obama’s Supreme Court Seat, plus a 4th Supreme Court Seat against the Will of the Majority
  • After Ruth Ginsburg died Republicans proved to be PARTISAN HYPOCRITES by committing to fill her seat weeks before the 2020 election with Conservative Supreme Court nominee Amy Barrett who is being appointed SOLELY because she’s expected to rule on issues like Roe V. Wade & “Affordable Healthcare” a certain way
  • Appointing & confirming “Justices” because they are expected to rule on issues a particular way is not justice
  • The MAJORITY is NOT Conservative and does not support BACKWARD, REPRESSIVE, CONSERVATIVE, 1800’s ideologies and values
  • The Senate is RIGGED for Republicans and doesn’t represent the MAJORITY. Half of the US population lives in just nine states yet is only represented by 18 Senators. Democrats led Republicans by more than 12 million votes in Senate races in the 2018 election, yet suffered losses due to our UN-Democratic Rigged-for-Republicans Government
  • The Supreme Court is now Rigged for Republicans and doesn’t represent the MAJORITY. It’s become another tool to cram unpopular conservative ideologies down the Majority’s Throats.
  • Republicans are behaving like Fascist Authoritarians, who only care about power and cramming what they want down citizens throats, lacking decency, fairness, ethics and integrity
  • The President SHOULD be elected by the MAJORITY
  • Federal Judges and the Supreme Court SHOULD represent the values and will of the MAJORITY.


Former Judge Resigns From the Supreme Court Bar in a Letter to John Roberts

The Chief Justice of the United States One First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20543 March 11, 2020 Dear Chief Justice Roberts: I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar. This was not an easy decision.

Per the above article; “James Dannenberg is a retired Hawaii state judge. He sat on the District Court of the 1st Circuit of the state judiciary for 27 years. Before that, he served as the deputy attorney general of Hawaii. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, teaching federal jurisdiction for more than a decade. On Wednesday, Dannenberg tendered a letter of resignation from the Supreme Court Bar to Chief Justice John Roberts. He has been a member of that bar since 1972. Here’s some of his letter;

“Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

I hereby resign my membership in the Supreme Court Bar.

This was not an easy decision. I have been a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, far longer than you have, and appeared before the Court, both in person and on briefs, on several occasions as Deputy and First Deputy Attorney General of Hawaii before being appointed as a Hawaii District Court judge in 1986. I have a high regard for the work of the Federal Judiciary and taught the Federal Courts course at the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law for a decade in the 1980s and 1990s. This due regard spanned the tenures of Chief Justices Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist before your appointment and confirmation in 2005. I have not always agreed with the Court’s decisions, but until recently I have generally seen them as products of mainstream legal reasoning, whether liberal or conservative. The legal conservatism I have respected– that of, for example, Justice Lewis Powell, Alexander Bickel or Paul Bator– at a minimum enshrined the idea of stare decisis and eschewed the idea of radical change in legal doctrine for political ends.

I can no longer say that with any confidence. You are doing far more— and far worse– than “calling balls and strikes.” You are allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law.

The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst”.


Brian Fallon: Roberts Court is Facing a Crisis of Legitimacy

WASHINGTON, D.C. March 13, 2020 – On Friday, Demand Justice Executive Director Brian Fallon released the following statement in response to news that a former Hawaii judge has joined a federal district court judge and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor in criticizing the Roberts Court’s recent actions: The Roberts Court is facing a crisis of legitimacy.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman published a paper entitled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy”

U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman published a paper entitled “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy” in the forthcoming issue of the Harvard Law & Policy Review blowing the whistle on the Roberts Court’s partisan, anti-democratic bias. “The Court’s hard right majority is actively participating in undermining American democracy,” he wrote. “Indeed, the Roberts Court has contributed to insuring that the political system in the United States pays little attention to ordinary Americans and responds only to the wishes of a relatively small number of powerful corporations and individuals.

Both of these judges followed Justice Sotomayor in sounding the alarm on the five Republican justices’ allegiances to the Trump administration. Issuing a scathing dissent to a 5-4 decision permitting the Trump administration to institute a wealth test for immigrants, she wrote, “perhaps most troublingly, the Court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others.


Legal Experts and Yale Friends Believe Kavanaugh Committed Perjury

Multiple legal experts, pundits and former peers of Brett Kavanaugh believe the embattled Supreme Court nominee lied under oath during his re-hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday while denying various accusations and questions raised during the hours-long grilling session.


Experts agree that Brett Kavanaugh lied under oath numerous times, so he can be be removed from the bench and could face prison time.


Did Russia Affect the 2016 Election? It’s Now Undeniable

For some time, there has been a conflation of issues-the hacking and leaking of illegally obtained information versus propaganda and disinformation; cyber-security issues and the hacking of elections systems versus information operations and information warfare; paid advertising versus coercive messaging or psychological operations-when discussing “Russian meddling” in the 2016 US elections.

Trump is also a Illegitimate President because it has been established that Russia hacked, interfered with and likely influenced the outcome of the 2016 Election.

Five (5) Republican appointed Supreme Court Judges are Illegitimate because the Presidents who put them in office (Republicans Bush & Trump) were not supported or voted for by the Majority of Americans.

New information has been reported which indicate that a 6th Republican appointed Justice, Clarence Thomas may have lied during his confirmation. If this is true, he could be removed.



Trump, Mitch McConnell and Republicans has been packing the courts with unqualified judges. Here is how we go about fairly, honestly and ethically unpacking the courts


Two ways Democrats can remove Kavanaugh – without impeaching him

Before Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was sworn in, critics were calling for his impeachment. The political polarization over allegations that he had assaulted Christine Blasey Ford when they were teenagers doesn’t show much sign of abating. Impeachment is a polarizing process itself, though, one that even many Democrats appear uneasy about pursuing if they win control of Congress in next month’s elections.

Per the above article: “A Democratic Congress and a future Democratic president could remove Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court if they wanted without needing to impeach him. There are two other ways to kick a sitting justice off the court – neither of which requires a supermajority.

In the first, a new president would nominate and the Senate would confirm by majority vote a justice – in this case Kavanaugh – to a different post on an intermediate court of appeals (say the D.C. Circuit, where Kavanaugh formerly served). The justice would, in effect, be demoted.

It finds support in an 1803 Supreme Court case called Stuart v. Laird. The fading Federalist Party of John Adams had created 16 new federal judgeships in 1801 – in part to spare Supreme Court justices from having to “ride the circuit” and hear regional appellate cases. Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans triumphed at the polls and abolished the new positions in 1802.

The second alternative method of relieving a justice of his or her duties. In a 2006 article in the Yale Law Journal, two scholars (conservatives, as it happens), Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, amassed historical evidence that the Framers understood the “good behavior” standard to be judicially, rather than just politically, enforceable.

They pointed out that judicial removal proceedings were used in English law in the 1780s, and were included in the New York, South Carolina and Massachusetts pre-1787 constitutions. Moreover, they noted, “good behavior” was included by the Continental Congress as a standard in the 1787 Northwest Ordinance for courts in the territories – before there were a separate House and Senate to conduct an impeachment.

As (roughly) proposed in the Yale article, Congress could pass a statute authorizing a specially constituted bench of federal judges – say, five randomly drawn judges – to determine whether a particular judge (here, Kavanaugh) had violated the “good behavior” standard. That special bench could hold a hearing and, if convinced by the evidence, make the requisite finding to trigger exit from the bench. This approach wouldn’t require a congressional supermajority. It would need a presidential signature.

Current federal law contains a trace of this mechanism. When a judge is convicted of a felony, whether in state or federal court, the law now states that he or she “shall not hear or decide cases” unless a council of judges decides otherwise. To be sure, the judge keeps a salary in the interim. But the judge is effectively sidelined – as completely as if he or she were impeached.

The creation of a new vehicle for judicial peer review seems to be the optimal option, as it would create a nonpartisan, procedurally robust device for disciplining judges.

Supreme Court justices right now have no real supervisors when it comes to ethics, and impeachment has come to seem excessively partisan. A standing body, available for all cases of misconduct – not just a ticket for one ride only – would resolve that problem, no matter who the appointing president.



The US Supreme Court has proven that it is not “Just”. Proof is how they almost always vote down party lines. This underscores how flawed our justice system is in general.

The US Supreme Court has become nothing more than a tool to force political policy of the prevailing majority of justices beliefs down the American people’s throats.

It’s Time to Retire Lifetime Appointments for Supreme Court Justices

When Supreme Court justices enter a room, you can feel the air change. I first noticed this two years ago at the State of the Union address from my perch in the elbow-to-elbow press balcony above the House gallery.

As stated in the above article, there’s nothing in the Constitution that explicitly promises federal judges “lifetime appointments.” The language of Article III says justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,”.

The Constitution was written at a time when surviving infancy was a triumph—let alone making it to the Supreme Court with enough time for a 30-plus-year stint on the bench.

“The people who created the Constitution of the United States in the 18th century lived in a very different world than we live in,” said Michael Sappol, a historian and author of A Traffic of Dead Bodies, a book about death and social identity. “The idea that judges would get life appointments had a different kind of meaning then than it does now.”

As more Americans live longer, institutions like the Supreme Court are undergoing profound change. In other words, a lifetime isn’t what it used to be. And plenty of people have argued that the highest court in the land ought to be subject to some of the restrictions that lower-level U.S. courts and top courts in other countries already have in place. “Every place else in the world they have age limits or term limits,” says Paul Carrington, a law professor at Duke University.

The five most recently retired Supreme Court justices averaged more than 25 years apiece on the bench. That’s nearly triple the nine-year average tenure of the court’s first five justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court should be allowed to serve for a maximum of 12 years. NO ONE should be guaranteed a job for life. Anyone appointed should non-political and not affiliated with any political party.

We need a Supreme Court that can be trusted to be fair, nonpolitical, and ethical. We need to reform the Supreme Court.


Hits: 252