She also claimed that Bowman encouraged a “mob” that accosted her when she visited New York City to protest former President Donald Trump’s indictment. Greene, during Thursday’s press conference, claimed that Bowman had demonstrated a “history of aggression” toward her, among other members of Congress. ![]() “Proving that to be true once again, last week Marjorie Taylor Greene summoned up the country's unique history of white on Black spectacular lynchings and other white supremacist violence in an attempt to gain political leverage, attention and more power.” “Marjorie Taylor Greene is a very dangerous person, a leading member of the Republican Party and larger neofascist movement,” Chauncey DeVega wrote in a column for Salon. That is wrong.”īut a columnist argued Monday that description fits the far-right congresswoman from Georgia perfectly. Calling me a white supremacist is equal to that. “It’s like calling a person of color the N-word which should never happen. Chief Justice Roberts has the power to change that, but so far he hasn't shown the courage."īusiness Insider's full report is available at this link. "Every federal judge is bound to an ethics code requiring them to avoid behavior that so much as looks improper - except for Supreme Court justices. ![]() Similarly, Kyle Herrig, president of progressive advocacy group Accountable.US, told Insider, "It's reasonable to ask if Jane Roberts' leadership and pro bono counsel for a right-wing anti-choice group with prior business before the Court is a conflict of interest for Chief Justice Roberts," Herrig, the Accountable.US president, said. "It's not entitled to a fixed level of legitimacy." However, he added, "Ultimately, the Supreme Court is a powerful institution and all-powerful institutions deserve scrutiny," Lemieux told Insider. Lemieux commented "If there was something about his wife's activism that made him particularly biased on that issue, it's pretty strange that, if anything, he's moved to the left on abortion over time. Wade, calling it a 'serious jolt' to the legal system while advocating for a 'narrower' decision on the matter. In his concurring opinion, John Roberts made clear that he felt the Supreme Court's five conservative justices went too far in overturning Roe v. Wade entirely, instead lending his support only to upholding the law at the center of Jackson v. The suggestion then that Jane Roberts' anti-abortion work may have influenced her husband's judicial decisions on abortion cases is complicated by the fact that John Roberts did not ultimately join his fellow conservative justices in voting to overturn Roe v. Wade and the dismantling of 50 years of abortion protections and precedence."īecause Jane Roberts halted her work with the group prior to her husband's confirmation, Scott Lemieux, a professor of political science at the University of Washington and Supreme Court and constitutional law expert told the publication her "past anti-abortion leadership likely doesn't rise to the level of being a bonafide conflict of interest." Dobbs, a decision that led to the 2022 reversal of Roe v. Bush nominated Roberts in 2005, and almost two decades later, according to Insider, the justice "voted to uphold a Mississippi law that prohibits nearly all abortions after 15 weeks in Jackson v. Jane Roberts' work leading a top anti-abortion organization in the 1990s and her continued legal work on behalf of that nonprofit helped, in part, muster conservative support for her husband's Supreme Court nomination, according to research shared with Insider by the watchdog group ' Accountable.US'.įormer President George W. Bush, many social conservatives were initially skeptical of the judge who seemed to have a lack of public opinions and speeches outlining his views, according to a 2005 New York Times profile following his nomination. In the year leading up to John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court by then-President George W. ![]() Jane Sullivan Roberts, lawyer and wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, is highly revered in the anti-abortion advocacy space, having served in leadership roles for Feminists for Life - a group that aims to "make abortion unthinkable" - from 1995-1999. ![]() As the United States Supreme Court remains under deep scrutiny over issues of ethics, "questions of conflict of interest" are revealing details of the justices' pasts, Business Insider reports.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |