How the Supreme Court has weaponized the Fourteenth Amendment and Brown v. Board of Education against antiracism. [A decision on SFFA v. Harvard, which was heard in October 2022, is pending as of January 29, 2023].
This book is a detailed critique of the judicial philosophy to which the current majority of the Supreme Court of the United States adheres.
Suggestions that the Supreme Court could adopt parts of the dangerous theory without upending elections are wrong.
Judge J. Michelle Childs' history of harsh criminal justice rulings contrast sharply with the background of another potential nominee, former public defender Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.
These emergency rulings – short, unsigned and issued without hearing oral arguments – undermine the public’s faith in the integrity of the court
The argument that court expansion is unconstitutional is weak, transparently political — and most importantly, wrong.
This week US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) charged corporate dark money is behind a plot, bearing all the marks of a covert operation, to control the Supreme Court and undermine the independence of the judicial branch of the federal government.
The ultimate goal of many liberal movements is equity, which does not seem too much of a priority for Barrett.
By choice and by law, high court justices in those places work together to render consensus-based decisions.
“In an America...Black people ‘are considered dangerous even when they are in their living rooms eating ice cream, asleep in their beds, playing in the park, standing in the pulpit of their church, birdwatching, exercising in public, or walking..."
Spread the word