The attack on Biden’s Supreme Court nominee has begun, spearheaded by the Judicial Crisis Network, and it all boils down to one thing: dark money.
Can we start with the fact that the Judicial Crisis Network is not even a real organization, but a “fictitious name” of another organization, one of several “fictitious names”?
Throw in the secret donors, and it’s so gross it would gag a maggot.
In 2011, the Supreme Court’s conservative justices opened the floodgates for dark money with Citizens United, allowing unlimited spending in our politics. Right away, a network of right-wing groups, donors, and non-profits sprung up and got to work.
The Judicial Crisis Network is one of those groups. In 2016, they spent $7 million to attack Garland, and $10 million to boost Gorsuch.When it came to Barrett and Kavanaugh, they threw down a combined $20 million to launch media firestorms.
Now, @judicialnetwork is pulling an old propaganda trick – accuse your opponent of what you, yourself, have done. These groups are rolling in dark money, but still try to tarnish Biden’s nominee — before she’s even named. Pay attention; it’s going to get ugly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Here’s the deal. Once Senate debate on a measure ends, you can pass the bill with a simple majority vote. So if you’re willing to outlast the other side, you don’t need cloture. This could take weeks, as other Voting Rights bills did, but we have a few tools that help.
One is my DISCLOSE Act being in the bill. Republicans must vote against it for their dark-money donors, but that kills them with voters. Ditto gerrymandering. Lots of focus on those painful votes for them in the bill will help.
Another is the Senate speak-twice rule. Senators who’ve spoken twice on a question can be ruled out of order if they keep at it. That’s why real filibusters were long, uninterrupted speeches. Not one and done, but two and done. (Yup, that’s 100 speeches by Rs — sorry!)
One year ago today, I watched from the window in my Capitol office as insurrectionists sent by the former President launched an assault to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Today, I’m thinking of the United States Capitol Police, the Metropolitan Police, and all of the law enforcement officers who lost their lives or were injured protecting our Capitol. We owe them all a debt of gratitude for their bravery and service.
We still need to fully understand what took place that day. It’s not enough for law enforcement to prosecute the looters and trespassers who breached the Capitol. The House’s Select Committee and the Department of Justice must follow the money.
The Commission has accomplished its job of killing time for the Biden Administration while avoiding any controversy or impact. whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/w…
Unfortunately, this law school faculty-heavy commission failed to accomplish even the opening “issue-spotting” work taught in first year in law school.
If another country had given its judicial selection over to a private, partisan group, while that partisan group was taking massive anonymous private donations, we’d have something to say about the obvious dangers of that. Not here.
The major disruptor of Earth’s basic operating systems is fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions. Making the fossil fuel industry pay a carbon pollution fee is the most effective way to stop those emissions, spur energy innovation, and turn toward safety.
The supercharged greenhouse gas disrupting Earth’s operating systems is methane, which the fossil fuel industry leaks, copiously. A methane pollution fee will virtually eliminate that leakage, fast. And we’ll be safer and healthier.
By 2050, oceans will have more plastic waste than living fish. Disposable plastic items use virtually no recycled plastic. To change that path, a plastics pollution fee can give recycling a boost and industry an incentive and seas a future.
When a citizen is charged in an indictment, the indictment should confine itself to the offense charged. An indictment is a precise tool of prosecution, not an opportunity for a novella. nytimes.com/2021/09/30/us/…
DOJ’s Justice Manual instructs that “prosecutors should remain sensitive to the privacy & reputation interests of uncharged third-parties,” and extends that caution even to unindicted co-conspirators.
Uncharged, easily identified, and in a federal indictment is a tough place for these scientists to be put. Not parties to the criminal case, they have no forum to answer in.