Category: Supreme Court

Climate Action, Climate Change, Supreme Court October 16, 2020October 16, 2020

Amy Coney Barrett Unsure of Climate Change, a Scientific Fact

Washington (GGM) Analysis | October 16, 2020 by Michael Wells, Attorney @slnc01

On October 14, 2020, Trump Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, told Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) she could not say whether climate change exists because it is a “politically contentious issue.” She also confessed to Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) she has no firm view on climate change. A skeptic might ask what her view on climate change has to do with cases that might come before her when she sits on the Supreme Court. Quite a bit, actually, especially in light of the lawsuits filed by a number of States’ Attorneys General against Exxon in the past few years.

The New York State Supreme Court in 2019 considered whether Exxon lied to investors about the company’s contribution to climate change and thus violated securities law. The Court ruled in Exxon’s favor, according to NPR, stating there was no evidence Exxon hid evidence of climate change.

This should signal alarm bells across the globe. Climate change exists, and of course the oil companies knew and know about it. It is the greatest danger any of us will face in our lifetimes.

Moreover, when juxtaposed with Barrett’s testimony, that she could not comment on climate change even to acknowledge it exists, it does not bode well for the environment. Given the lawsuits against Exxon and other energy giants, it stands to reason that climate change is a major legal issue.

Barrett claimed she is not a scientist, but one does not need to be a scientist to accept climate change as a fact. And, if it is accepted as a fact, then that certainly affects how she would consider a case.

It is entirely possible (likely even) that, if Biden prevails, the Justice Department will pursue these climate change cases, thereby forcing Barrett to rule on this issue.

Hypothetically speaking, assume the previous New York case made it to the Supreme Court, and at the heart of the case was whether an oil company was committing fraud by hiding climate change from investors. If Barrett were to believe climate change does not exist or was unsure it existed, then her view of fraud would be very different. Then she might rule in favor of the oil giant thus allowing them to continue to pollute, destroy the environment, and unleash a further parade of horribles, possibly another COVID-19 type pandemic.

Again, this is just speculation, but is it not all speculation as to what kinds of cases Barrett will hear? It is a question or probability. She will hear cases about abortion, birth control, searches and seizures, voting rights, climate change, and myriad other issues none of us ever hear about. In all likelihood, she will hear a case on climate change and likely very soon.

In fact, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit on behalf of the citizens of Minnesota against Exxon, Koch Industries, and the American Petroleum Institute, in the Spring of 2020, alleging the fossil fuel industry knew the damage these fossil fuels would cause the environment.

The cases are coming. It is only a matter of time before a case goes before the Supreme Court.

Climate change affects everyone on the planet, and it is a problem that everyone will need to work together to solve. We can do our part such as reducing our carbon footprint and also by planting trees. But we also need to be able to count on a nominee to the Supreme Court to accept this established science because, if she does not, what hope do any of us ever have that climate change will ever get under control?

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is gallantarcher_3d_socialmedia.jpg

Ethics, Legislative Branch, Supreme Court February 19, 2019March 3, 2019

The Impeachment of Supreme Court Associate Justice

Washington (Gallant Gold Media Hill Report) – Since history does seem to repeat itself, the past becomes quite useful in providing valuable precedents that can be used to guide America two hundred years later.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Chase from Maryland – aka Old Bacon Face – a two term member of the Continental Congress and signer of the Declaration of Independence, was appointed to the Supreme Court by George Washington on January 26, 1796. Those were stressful years back at the very beginning of the great American experiment. Two political parties had emerged in less than ten years of the 1st Congress, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. John Adams, second American president and an ardent Federalist, was a strong supporter of hardline Federalist Samuel Chase. Old Bacon Face was an insufferable partisan though, one who boomed his extreme political opinions from the bench. The refined Democratic-Republican gentlemen of the South were aghast at Chase’s abrasive temperament and overt partisanship and accused him of promoting a political agenda through his rulings rather than applying wise impartiality based on Constitutional law.

The bitter conflict reached a crescendo when third President Thomas Jefferson arrived at the “President’s House” on March 4, 1801. Jefferson was so outraged at former president John Adams’ last minute attempt to diminish the power of the Executive Branch by granting increased power to the Judicial Branch through the Judiciary Act of 1801, which went into effect on March 3, 1801, Adams last day in office, that Jefferson was on an immediate mission to repeal the Act. Within 19 days, Jefferson successfully removed the “midnight judges” despite the fact that they’d been appointed for life by the Adams Administration. It was a vicious first chapter of our three branches of government, very similar to several hellacious extremes during the 2018 midterms.

Jefferson was leery of any Federalist partisan hardliner pushing the party’s political agenda from the Supreme Court bench, especially a Justice as loud and turbulent as Samuel Chase. On March 12, 1804, led by Representative John Randolph of Roanoke, Virginia, a close ally of Jefferson, the House voted to impeach Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Chase for political bias. The examples cited:

declining to dismiss biased jurors
excluding or limiting defense witnesses in two political cases
“behaving in an arbitrary, oppressive and unjust way by announcing his legal interpretation on the law of treason before defense counsel had been heard”

In January 1805, when the Senate tried Federalist Justice Chase, he defended himself by claiming he was being punished for his political convictions rather than any real crime or misdemeanor. The Senate acquitted Samuel Chase on all eight counts, despite the majority voting in favor of impeaching on three of the eight, however they needed a 2/3 majority to prevail. Old Bacon Face remained in office until his death in 1811.

The Samuel Chase impeachment proceedings in Congress were the third impeachment proceedings in the fifteen short years since the start of the 1st Congress. Back at the beginning it seems, our Representatives were extremely tenacious, and apparently relished the opportunity to protect our nation’s principles no matter how tedious the process… after all, American democracy was just an experiment that so few expected to succeed, thus it seemed that everyone was determined to exert the maximum effort required to triumph.

Ethics, Supreme Court December 29, 2018December 30, 2018

The 83 Complaints Filed Against Kavanaugh Prove Beyond A Doubt

“Equal justice under law is not merely a caption on the facade of the Supreme Court building; it is perhaps the most inspiring ideal of our society. It is one of the ends for which our entire legal system exists… it is fundamental that justice should be the same, in substance and availability, without regard to economic status.” ~Lewis Powell. Jr

Powerful symbols adorn the Supreme Court seemingly to reinforce that all the noble ideals they embody are real, and true.

Equal Justice Under Law

There were 83 complaints filed against Brett Kavanaugh by the middle of September 2018. Chief Justice John Roberts sent these to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Colorado to be reviewed. On December 18, 2018, all were dismissed by Chief Circuit Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich. Tymkovich’s decision to dismiss was based on Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh now being on the Supreme Court and thus Tymkovish didn’t have jurisdiction.

The Guardian or Authority of Law

The 83 complaints are very well written, with extensive details and documentation proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Kavanaugh is guilty of perjury, political bias, and improper Code of Conduct. Having emails that prove Kavanaugh lied under oath is damning, not to mentioned Kavanaugh’s inappropriate behavior being publicly televised and viewed by more than 20 million.

Contemplation of Justice

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal’s dismissal, cannot be the end of this grievous injustice. The Supreme Court building itself, the grounds and architecture, have strongly articulated exactly what the standards and expectations are for any Supreme Court Justice. Kavanaugh falls well below the bar.

Based on the complaints providing irrefutable facts that prove Kavanaugh’s guilt, and Chief Circuit Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich citing jurisdiction, the only path available is to annul Kavanaugh’s confirmation so that the complaints can be processed within the guidelines outlined by the Court of Appeals.

Judicial Branch, Legislative Branch, Supreme Court December 18, 2018December 24, 2019

Is Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Legitimate?

Immediately following Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation on October 6, 2018, Chief Justice John Roberts passed along 83 judicial misconduct complaints filed against Brett Kavanaugh to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colorado. These ethics complaints included: false statements while under oath, political bias, lack of judicial temperament, treating the Senate Judiciary Committee with disrespect, as well as several miscellaneous complaints.

Chief Circuit Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed all of the complaints in his Order today, dated December 18, 2018.

Tymkovich’s grounds for dismissal were based on jurisdiction whereby he claims that Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court Judge, and Tymkovich only has authority to resolve complaints concerning the potential misconduct of “covered judges”
Covered Judges include: “a circuit judge, district judge, bankruptcy judge, or magistrate judge”

This all seems a bit fuzzy considering the facts that:

Kavanaugh’s misconduct occurred before he was confirmed to the Supreme Court; if these complaints had to be reviewed before Kavanaugh was confirmed, the vote for confirmation should have been put on hold in order for the complaints to be processed appropriately; it now appears that the GOP rammed the vote through the senate at break-neck speed for this specific purpose… creating a loophole that would protect Kavanaugh from accountability
Chief Justice John Roberts deemed that Tymkovich did have jurisdiction which is why Roberts sent the complaints to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals after Kavanaugh was confirmed, or was this a ruse?
Tymkovich denies or dismisses virtually all judicial misconduct complaints; he appears to use a template for the majority of his dismissals and denials;
If we’re shocked by the stunning dismissal of Kavanugh’s misconduct, we should be even more appalled by Tymkovich’s dismissal of the misconduct complaint filed against DC Circuit Judge Richard W. Roberts on July 28, 2017.
Back at the beginning of his legal career, while prosecuting a case in Salt Lake City, Utah, Roberts “raped” 16 year old injured witness Terry Mitchell “nearly every day for a several weeks.” Following this successful trial outcome, Roberts was soon promoted to Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York where he worked under Rudy Giuliani. Onward and upward until he was nominated to the United States District Court in DC in 1998.

Fuzzy judicial orders like Tymkovich’s today, clearly undermine the rule of law. The fact that this is one of a tremendous number of Tenth Circuit Court Of Appeals misconduct decisions that get dismissed or denied, is nauseating. Is the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals legitimate? If judges can create a system where they’re never accountable for their misdeeds, yet have the ability to dramatically alter the lives, the fortunes and the destinies of the American public, creating thousands and thousands of victims… it’s an alarming injustice. And it’s unconstitutional.

In light of the fact that Chief Circuit Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has deemed these 83 judicial misconduct complaints filed against Brett Kavanaugh as “serious,” and the legal definition of serious equates to felony, and the world is fully aware of the Republican leadership’s mission to rush Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote to the floor in order to create the beneficial loophole for Kavanaugh, it’s very clear there’s enough evidence to impeach Kavanaugh from the Supreme Court until these complaints can be properly reviewed.