Understanding Conservative Justices of the Supreme Court - Trump Potentate Decision - Current Conservative Justices on SCOTUS: : Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett

Project 2025   Bifurcated America

By Tracy Turner June 18, 2024

Is the president a king, a potentate with unbridled power? The five conservative justices seem to think so. This article is about the Supreme Court's decision on Trump's immunity. Justices Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Thomas have significantly altered Constitutional Law regarding the Office of the President with their recent decision on Trump's immunity. They have expanded the scope of presidential power by ruling that a sitting president is immune from state criminal investigations and prosecutions while in office. This decision has not only shifted the balance of power between the executive branch and the states, granting the president unprecedented protection from legal scrutiny at the state level, but also potentially weakened the states' ability to hold the president accountable.

In simpler terms, these five conservative justices have changed the rules about whether a president can be investigated or prosecuted for crimes while holding office. Before this decision, legal scholars generally accepted that a president could face legal consequences for actions taken before or during their presidency. However, this ruling now shields the president from certain state-level legal proceedings while in office, giving them more protection from being held accountable for potential wrongdoing.

Deceitful Behaviors:

1.    Samuel Alito:

·       Inconsistent statements regarding judicial activism.

·       Misleading interpretations of legal precedents.

·       Lack of transparency in responses to questions about controversial issues.

2.    Clarence Thomas:

·       Failure to disclose conflicts of interest.

·       Evasive reactions to questions about past decisions.

·       Selective memory when questioned about specific cases.

3.    John Roberts:

·       Downplaying the impact of money in politics.

·       Dodging questions related to civil rights and equality.

·       Avoiding direct answers on controversial topics like abortion and healthcare.

4.    Neil Gorsuch:

·       Cherry-picking legal principles to support personal biases.

·       Disregarding the implications of his rulings on marginalized communities.

·       Using technical jargon to obscure the true intent behind his decisions.

5.    Brett Kavanaugh:

·       Providing misleading information about past behaviors and interactions.

·       Sidestepping inquiries into his judicial temperament and impartiality.

·       Failing to address concerns raised by credible accusers during confirmation hearings.

6.    Amy Coney Barrett:

·       Glossing over potential conflicts of interest arising from previous affiliations.

·       Evading questions on reproductive rights and LGBTQ+ issues.

·       She demonstrated a need for honesty in her responses regarding her judicial philosophy.

 

Arguments for Habitual Misleading Behavior:

1.    Pattern of Evasion: All six individuals exhibit a consistent pattern of evasiveness when confronted with challenging or contentious inquiries. This evasion often manifests as vague responses, deflections, or outright refusals to engage with the questions' substance.

2.    Selective Memory: Individuals have displayed a tendency to conveniently forget or downplay aspects of their past statements, actions, or legal opinions that could be perceived unfavorably. This selective memory serves to obfuscate their true beliefs or intentions from public scrutiny.

3.    Lack of Transparency: The lack of transparency in their testimonies suggests a deliberate effort to conceal relevant information or obscure their positions on critical issues. By withholding key details or providing incomplete answers, they create a facade of openness while maintaining secrecy around their true motives.

4.    Inconsistent Positions: Over time, contradictory statements made by these individuals raise doubts about the sincerity and integrity of their testimonies before Congress. Their shifting stances on key legal matters indicate a willingness to adapt their narratives based on expediency rather than principled reasoning.

5.    Partisan Bias: Their responses align with partisan interests rather than objective legal analysis, underscores a predisposition toward advancing ideological agendas over impartial justice. This bias compromises the credibility and impartiality expected from members of the judiciary.

6.    Deflection Tactics: By employing deflection tactics such as redirecting questions, resorting to technical legalese, or invoking procedural justifications, these individuals seek to obfuscate the core issues and avoid genuine accountability for their actions and beliefs.

Clarence Thomas

Clarence Thomas, the longest-serving associate justice on the Supreme Court, has been a frequent target of controversy and criticism throughout his tenure. One of the most notable controversies surrounding Thomas occurred during his confirmation hearings in 1991, where former colleague Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassment. Thomas vehemently denied these allegations, but the incident left a lasting stain on his reputation.

Thomas has been known for his conservative views and has often found himself at odds with the liberal wing of the court. He is frequently criticized for his narrow interpretation of the Constitution and his opposition to affirmative action, which some argue undermines efforts to address historic racial discrimination. Additionally, Thomas has been accused of being inconsistent in his application of the law, particularly in cases involving race and individual rights.

From CNBC and Fix the Courts: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas accepted millions of dollars’ worth of gifts over the past two decades on the bench, a total nearly 10 times the value of all gifts received by his fellow justices during the same time, according to a new analysis.

Thomas received 103 gifts with a total value of more than $2.4 million between 2004 and 2023, the judicial reform group Fix the Court said in a report Thursday.

Kark.com reported that: Thomas, nominated to the high court by former President George H.W. Bush, made headlines last year after an investigation found he had taken dozens of trips paid for by separate billionaire friends.

According to the data compiled by Fix the Court, since 2004, Thomas has accepted $4,042,286, or 193 gifts. The group reported that, for Thomas, there’s an additional 126 “likely but not confirmed gifts.”

Of the nearly 200 gifts, the group said Thomas only reported 27 of the gifts on his financial disclosures.

John Roberts

John Roberts, the current Supreme Court justice, has been criticized for his role in several high-profile cases. In 2012, he was part of the majority opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act's mandate as a tax but limited the federal government's power to expand Medicaid. Critics have argued that Roberts' decision was politically motivated and did not adequately consider the constitutional implications of the ruling.

Roberts has been criticized for his stance on voting rights. In 2013, he wrote the majority opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively gutted a vital provision of the Voting Rights Act by striking down a formula used to determine which states needed federal approval to change their voting laws. This decision has been widely criticized for making it easier for states to implement discriminatory voting practices.

 

Samuel Alito

Samuel Alito is another conservative justice who has faced controversy during his time on the Supreme Court. He wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on political advertisements. This led to an explosion in campaign spending and concerns about political influence from wealthy donors. Alito has also been criticized for his positions on reproductive rights, with many arguing that he is hostile to Roe v. Wade and its protections for abortion access.

 

Amy Coney Barrett

Amy Coney Barrett's controversial confirmation to the Supreme Court in 2020 was marred by accusations that Republicans were rushing her nomination ahead of the presidential election, violating longstanding precedent and tradition. Additionally, Democrats raised concerns about Barrett's past affiliations with far-right groups and her views on issues such as abortion and healthcare policy. Critics have argued that her addition to the court further solidifies its conservative majority and threatens to roll back essential protections for marginalized communities.

 

Neil Gorsuch

Neil Gorsuch faced controversy during his confirmation process when President Donald Trump controversially chose him over Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama's nominee for the same seat vacated by Antonin Scalia's death in 2016. Gorsuch's nomination was seen as a blatant political move by Republicans to deny Obama a chance to appoint a more liberal justice before leaving office. Critics have also taken issue with Gorsuch's views on religious freedom, workers' rights, and executive power. Some argue that Gorsuch prioritizes corporations over individuals and is too quick to defer to the executive branch at the expense of congressional authority.

 

Brett Kavanaugh

Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation process was rocked by multiple allegations of sexual misconduct during his high school and college years, including a claim from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford that he had attempted to rape her while they were both in high school. Kavanaugh vehemently denied these allegations but was still confirmed amidst significant protests and controversy surrounding his fitness for office due to questions about his character and honesty under oath during Senate testimony related to these allegations. Critics have also taken issue with Kavanaugh's judicial record on reproductive rights, executive power, and campaign finance reform, arguing that he consistently sides with powerful interests over individual rights or democratic principles. Moreover, critics say that Kavanaugh's presence on the court further solidifies its conservative majority at a time when many Americans are concerned about protecting democratic norms and institutions from political attacks by powerful actors within government or society, more broadly speaking.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision in Dobbs v.  Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, has sparked significant debate about the role of the Court in American society. The decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by  Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney  Barrett, represents a shift in the Court’s approach to Constitutional  Interpretation, particularly regarding the right to abortion. The majority opinion argues that the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to abortion, leaving the issue to individual states to regulate. This decision has been criticized by many, who argue that it undermines the principle of federalism and the separation of powers,  potentially leading to a more conservative interpretation of other constitutional rights.

The Dobbs decision has also raised concerns about the potential impact on other areas of law, including administrative law, religious freedom, business regulations, and social issues. Some commentators have expressed concern that the Court’s reasoning in Dobbs could be applied to other areas of law, potentially leading to a rollback of established rights and protections. For example, Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Dobbs suggests that the  Court should reconsider its previous rulings on issues such as same-sex marriage, contraception, and even the right to privacy. This has led to speculation that the Court may be poised to take a more conservative approach to these issues.

The Dobbs decision has also reignited debate about the role of the Court in a democratic society. Critics argue that the Court’s decision to overturn Roe v.  Wade, a landmark ruling that had been in place for nearly 50 years,  represents an overreach of its power and a disregard for the will of the people. They argue that the Court should be more deferential to the legislative process and should not be used to impose the views of a minority on the majority. Supporters of the Dobbs decision, on the other hand, argue that the Court is simply upholding the Constitution and returning the issue of abortion to the states, where it should be decided. They say that the Court is not overstepping its bounds but fulfilling its duty to interpret the Constitution.

The  Dobbs decision has significantly impacted American society, and its implications are still being debated. The decision has raised fundamental questions about the role of the Court, the meaning of constitutional rights, and the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Dobbs decision will continue to be a source of controversy and debate for years.

From a liberal perspective, the conservative justices of the Supreme Court pose a significant threat to the progress and rights of the American people. With the recent appointments of judges with strong conservative leanings, the court has shifted further to the right, endangering crucial legal principles that protect marginalized communities and uphold equality. Judicial conservatism has resulted in decisions that roll back hard-won civil rights victories, restrict voting rights, and limit reproductive freedom. The process of Supreme Court appointments has become heavily politicized, with conservative nominees often selected to uphold the interests of corporate entities and the wealthy elite. This trend has led to a conservative judiciary that prioritizes the rights of big business over those of everyday Americans. The political leanings of Supreme Court justices have a profound impact on the outcomes of cases, with conservative judges often siding with powerful interests at the expense of the common good. The legal philosophy of conservative justices tends to prioritize strict interpretation of the Constitution and limited government intervention, often at the cost of social progress and equality. Conservative legal principles often favor traditional values and strict adherence to originalist interpretations of the law, which can be damaging to the rights of minority groups and vulnerable populations. The impact of conservative justices on the Supreme Court can have far-reaching consequences for generations to come, shaping the legal landscape in ways that may erode civil liberties and hinder progress toward a more just society.

While this decision may have been made in favor of Trump, its implications will extend far beyond his presidency and impact future generations. By altering established norms and precedents, these justices have essentially fixed something that was not broken. For example, President Truman’s power was never challenged in such a way; however, this ruling sets a new precedent that could potentially weaken checks and balances on presidential authority for years to come, underlining the gravity of the situation and the potential imbalance in the U.S. government.

In summary, the recent Supreme Court decision on Trump's immunity has opened a Pandora's Box of sorts in terms of presidential power and accountability. By granting such broad immunity to the president, there is a risk that future presidents may abuse their authority without fear of legal repercussions. This decision could set a dangerous precedent that alters the dynamics of our democracy for generations to come, raising serious concerns and alarm about the potential abuse of power.

Sources:

1.  "The Supreme Court" by Jeffrey Rosen (book)

2.    "Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings in Modern American History" edited by Chris Auld (book) 3) "The Oxford Companion to United States History" edited by Paul S. Boyer (book)

3.    Congressional Records: The official transcripts and recordings of congressional hearings provide direct quotes and context for analyzing the testimonies given by Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett before Congress.

4.    Legal Analysis Journals: Scholarly publications specializing in legal analysis offer expert insights into the judicial behaviors and decision-making processes exhibited by Supreme Court justices like Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett during congressional hearings.

5.    Judicial Watchdog Reports: Reports from reputable judicial watchdog organizations shed light on potential ethical lapses or deceptive practices among Supreme Court justices testifying before Congress, helping identify patterns of misleading behavior among these individuals in their public appearances.