The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal to re-launch a John Doe investigation into Republican Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and conservative organizations in the state.
Everybody knows that Walker is an employee of the Koch brothers. And also the governor of Wisconsin.
I guess that must not be an impeachable offense in Wisconsin?
The framers of the Constitution never intended for nor protected against the SCOTUS becoming a "football" of political parties, which George Washington rightly abhorred.
Except for the majority of Wisconsin voters who have voted in in twice and once in a recall. The will of the majority of the people of Wisconsin.
I'm reminded of a scene in "The Big Short" when the group of investors were talking to the Mortgage Broker guys. The mortgage brokers smiled when they talked about how they approved any applicant with a pulse while not bothering to do any income checking or whatever. "Why are they confessing?" one of the investors asks. "They're not confessing", says his friend, "They're bragging!"
That's how far we've come when it comes to corruption in politics. Despite abundant, "beyond doubt" evidence of Scott Walker's "pay to play" dark money juggernaut in the form of the Wisconsin Club for Growth, half of the Supreme Court wouldn't re-open the investigation and the other half couldn't see the point in trying.
With every new email leak - they're not confessing - they're bragging.
Blow FOR Transparency?
This is hard to believe! Another flawed supreme court decision.
Though he might be 'Scott tree" - he is still a criminal thug. Wisconsin Lutherans have lost their good sense - and to prove it they will now vote for another thug - Trump.
The worst part of this election nightmare is that the Supreme Court is up for grabs. The Court will end up where it has been: firmly planted in the neoliberal/conservative camp. Will it land in the center of camp or on the fringe is the only question. Either way, it doesn't bode well for We the People.
What was the vote in the Supreme Court? I recently saw a list of about half a dozen cases that had been denied, and it seemed that most of them would have been a 4 - 4 vote. Does there need to be a majority to accept a case?
Not technically. It depends on why a justice thinks the case should or shouldn't move forward, and how these reasons could impact the final decision. Perhaps it appeared the case would end in a tie. Or they were just too chicken to take on their own very bad and very recent Citizens United decision.