Whenever we’re able to open up the phones to callers on The BradCast, I invite listeners to ring in and disrupt all of my plans for the day. Happily, they took me up on the offer today! [Audio link to full show follows this summary.]
Thus, my plan for the second half of today’s show — to focus on Trump’s latest criminal charges (Which ones? Take your pick!) — was largely waylaid by folks who wanted to discuss both him and the topic of my monologue in the first part of today’s show regarding the wildly corrupt U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Samuel Alito.
On Friday, the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page ran parts of fawning 4-hour interview with Alito, in which he falsely claimed: “No provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court-period.”
Perhaps Alito has never read the U.S. Constitution? For example, he must have missed the part (Article III, Section 2) which reads: “[T]he supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact…and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” [Emphasis mine.]
As Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) pointed out on CNN over the weekend in response to Alito’s B.S., Alito arguably owes his seat to the fact that Congress has regulated the number of seats that are on the Court (and have changed that number many times over the years) since the Constitution was founded! Of course, Alito likely also hates the fact that Congress, after Watergate, as per the Constitution, created legislation (regulations!) requiring annual financial disclosures by SCOTUS Justices. As ProPublica recently detailed, Alito has flouted that legislation by failing to disclose his luxury travel funded by GOP megadonors and other Republican ideologues.
Arguably worse, however, is the fact that one of the authors of the WSJ piece is attorney David Rivkin. He is currently representing the far-right Leonard Leo before the U.S. Senate, which is seeking Leo’s testimony as part of their consideration of reforming the corrupted Court. Leo is the longtime head of the Federalist Society, which has spent decades shaping the federal judiciary — including SCOTUS — to the liking of billionaire rightwing ideologues.
Even more shameful than that, Rivkin currently has a case pending before the High Court next term! Moore v. U.S. is likely to result in a landmark ruling that could establish whether or not a wealth tax — long sought by progressive Dems and opposed by rightwing ideologues — is Constitutional or not.
And yet, Rivkin arguably gave Alito something of value — presumably for free — in his four-hour softball interview with the Justice, headlined “Samuel Alito, The Supreme Court’s Plain Spoken Defender,” in which Rivkin and his co-writer (WSJ Editorial Page Editor James Taranto) fluffed him up with a 2,400-word puff piece including remarks praising Alito, for instance, for his “candor that is refreshing and can be startling.”
I’m sure Sammy appreciates it and will remember the favor when it’s time to decide Moore v. U.S next year. That’s because Alito is damned near as corrupt as Clarence Thomas and don’t even get me started here on him today. (I had a few words for the corrupted Clarence on today’s show, however.)
After that, my plans to cover Donald Trump‘s latest criminal problems and two recent Court losses (one today, one last Friday) in the second part of the show, as mentioned, were largely waylaid by callers. And happily so! We had some very good ones! Enjoy!…
The plot thickeneth … “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour” (Article III, Section I).
Who says ‘you have been a naughty boy or girl’?
Congress can say that to Alito, J. … IMO.