Demand Justice

---

MYSTAL SCOTUS PICKS ALITO 4 216

Josh Orton at uh Demand

13:46

13 minutes, 46 seconds

Justice, has been ringing this bell um uh for a couple of months. like you got

13:53

13 minutes, 53 seconds

to get ready for this. Um because it seems to me just I I I would bet I mean

14:01

14 minutes, 1 second

I'm not a betting man but I would bet a lot uh that that Alito is going to retire and and and somebody's going to

AN 11 25

Trump has appointed 27 judges to federal courts so far in his second term, and in addition to their right-wing interpretation of the law, an analysis of the judges’ comments to senators during the confirmation process reveals a key commonality between the president’s appointees: All were willing to evade direct questions about whether Trump lost the 2020 election and whether the US Capitol was attacked by a violent pro-Trump mob on January 6, 2021.

Demand Justice examined the Questions for the Record (QFRs) that were submitted by the Senate to the 27 judicial nominees regarding the election and January 6, and found that their answers to those two specific questions were nearly uniform in many cases—repeating certain phrases verbatim and “overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events.”

None of the 27 nominees affirmatively answered that former President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, as proven by numerous courts that rejected lawsuits claiming otherwise and by both Republican and Democratic election officials. Instead, the nominees said Biden was “certified” as the winner, and 16 of them said he “served” as president.

Some of the nominees, including Emil Bove of the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, Whitney Hermandorfer of the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and Kyle Dudek of the Middle District of Florida, expanded on their answers, saying they would avoid “opining on the broader political or policy debate regarding the conduct of the 2020 presidential election.”

Demand Justice said those comments “strongly, and falsely,” suggested the 2020 election results are still a matter of legal dispute.

Josh Orton, president of the group, told MSNBC‘s “Morning Joe” on Tuesday that the nominees’ answers preserved “their ability to say, ‘I did not contradict Donald Trump’ on what we know are the two most third-rail issues to Donald Trump.”

“If nominees don’t answer these two questions, I think it amounts to, essentially, a political loyalty test,” said Orton.

Regarding questions about whether the US Capitol was attacked on January 6 and whether the attack was an insurrection, said Demand Justice, “not one nominee was willing to speak to the events that occurred on that day.”

Twenty-one of them, including Bove, Hermandorfer, and Joshua Divine of District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, characterized the attack—in which Trump supporters tried to stop Congress from certifying the 2020 election results—as a matter of debate.

None of the nominees mentioned the law enforcement officers who died as a result of the attack, even though some mentioned violence against law enforcement broadly in their other QFR answers; the fact that the House and Senate chambers were broken into; or the death threats rioters directed at then-Vice President Mike Pence.

“It is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts—and it is deeply concerning that Trump’s nominees are parroting such strikingly similar language, the president’s own language, to avoid telling the truth,” said Orton.

Orton added that “the kicker” of the report is that 15 members of the Democratic Caucus have voted for Trump’s judicial nominees despite their evasive and dishonest answers about January 6 and Trump’s 2020 loss.

“Excuse me? People died,” said Orton. “If you’re willing to appease Trump’s big lies, you have no business anywhere near a court, period.”

Democrats who have voted in favor of confirming Trump’s nominees include Sens. Chris Coons (Del.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.).

---

11 22 comm dr an

Advocates for court reform on Saturday called for Congress to investigate allegations that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito leaked a 2014 ruling to a right-wing donor, after The New York Times reportedon the claim by a former leader of the pro-forced pregnancy movement.

Rev. Ron Schenck led an evangelical Christian nonprofit organization in 2014 when the court ruled on Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which allowed religious organizations to deny employees healthcare coverage for contraception.

The Times spent months investigating Schenck's claim—which he also detailed in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts in June—thatAlito leaked the court's decisionin the case to one of his top donors, three weeks before the ruling was publicly announced.

Schenck used his knowledge of the ruling to "prepare a public relations push," the Times reported, as well as telling the president of Hobby Lobby about it.

During his time as a crusader against abortion rights—an issue on which he's since changed his viewpoint—Schenck "recruited wealthy donors... encouraging them to invite some of the justices to meals, to their vacation homes, or to private clubs. He advised allies to contribute money to the Supreme Court Historical Society and then mingle with justices at its functions," reported the Times. "He ingratiated himself with court officials who could help give him access, records show."

Schenck sent a letter to Roberts in June—a month after the leak of a draft decision showing the court had voted to overturn Roe v. Wade—saying the information he gained about the Hobby Lobby ruling could be relevant to the court's inquiry into the recent leak. He told the Times he did not receive a response.

The story "strongly suggests Justice Alito leaked the 2014 opinion in Hobby Lobby, and describes a conspiracy by the far-right donor class to influence the Supreme Court Justices," said Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.), calling for an investigation by the U.S. House. [twt]

brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, which advocates for the expansion of the court and has called foran ethics probe into right-wing Justice Clarence Thomas's alleged conflicts of interest, said the Senate Judiciary Committee "should immediately move to investigate the apparent leak by Justice Alito."

"The whistleblower in this report, Rev. Rob Schenck, should be called to testify about both the leak and the yearslong lobbying effort he once led to cultivate Alito and other Republican justices," he added.

"This bombshell report is the latest proof that the Republican justices on the court are little more than politicians in robes," said Fallon. "It's no wonder trust in the Court has hit a record low. Structural reform of the court, including strict new ethics rules, is needed now more than ever."

===

an 3 22

Dark money groups have silently influenced election campaigns for many years but now some are complaining because it appears the tables have turned. The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler highlighted remarks from political action committees (PACs) raising concerns about U.S. Supreme Court Justice nominee Ketanji Brown.

On February 4, the Judicial Crisis Network released an ad that included a voiceover that said:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s “justices were to uphold the Constitution, to be above politics. Now, that legacy is being tarnished by secret money from liberals … a record amount of dark money, over a billion, put them [Democrats] in office, so they will put up an Arabella judge, a liberal activist, a Biden rubber stamp." [twt?]

then, on February 25, American Rising Squared tweeted, “Dark money groups, including Demand Justice, have been pushing Ketanji Brown Jackson for a SCOTUS spot for over a year. Once again, Joe Biden delivered for dark money groups and their wealthy donors.”

While it's not surprising that Republican conservatives are sounding off about the possibility of a Black woman joining the Supreme Court, Kessler highlighted the real problem with the groups' complaints: hypocrisy. According to Kessler, the same group complaining about Brown is actually funded by dark money themselves.

"What do the Judicial Crisis Network and American Rising Squared have in common?" Kessler asked, adding, "They are both 'dark money' groups complaining about the influence of dark money — when it comes from the other side of the political spectrum."

Offering facts about both groups, Kessler explained the pipeline funding both organizations.

He wrote:

"The conservative Judicial Crisis Network works to fill judicial vacancies across the country, including in state supreme courts and appellate courts. It received $17.9 million in 2016 and $17.1 million in 2017 from an undisclosed donor (or maybe two). It then turned around and used that money (and other contributions) to fight against the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 ($7 million) and for the nominations of Neil M. Gorsuch ($10 million), Brett M. Kavanaugh ($10 million) and Amy Coney Barrett ($10 million)."

Kessler also noted the problem with American Rising Squared and its own hypocrisy. "American Rising Squared’s tweet at least just focuses on Demand Justice," Kessler wrote. "But still, it’s another example of a conservative dark money group complaining about dark money."

He concluded with his take on the level of hypocrisy expressed between both organizations. "We can only marvel at the hypocrisy of these attacks. Perhaps the point is that only liberal dark money is a bad thing," Kessler wrote. "But if these groups are going to air such complaints, they need to disclose they engage in the same practice of collecting huge sums of money without revealing donors. They earn an upside-down Pinocchio — which is ordinarily for flip-flops — for their hypocrisy."

===

According to Davis, these punches are warranted. A3P was launched partly in response to Demand Justice, a liberal dark money group launched in 2018 as the left’s counterweight to Wellspring and JCN. Demand Justice’s arrival on the scene brought with it a significant shift to the judicial money race, which has traditionally been one-sided with the vast majority of funds from the right, most of which can be traced to JCN and Wellspring.

http://www.theherald-news.com/2018/09/02/gop-lawyer-caught-in-crossfire-on-kavanaugh-russia-probe/aukw7hj/

WASHINGTON – Bill Burck is a Republican insider being pushed into the limelight by two of the biggest political dramas in Washington: the Russia investigation of Robert Mueller and the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh.

He's a lawyer for current and former Trump White House officials who have been touched by the Russia probe. As George W. Bush's longtime public records lawyer, he's in charge of culling documents for the Senate from Kavanaugh's White House years. He's also Kavanaugh's friend and former deputy at the Bush White House.

That makes Burck, 47, "triply-conflicted," say some Democrats, They have denounced the lawyer's role in the unusual and potentially precedent-setting arrangement to expedite the gathering of Kavanaugh's government records before Senate confirmation hearings that start Tuesday.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told reporters that Republicans are "cherry-picking" what Kavanaugh records are available. He called it "a disservice to the American people."

Burck's friends and allies see in the Yale-educated lawyer a straight-shooting, skilled professional who cares less about partisan battles than providing the best legal representation possible. For several years in a row a legal publication named him a "White CollarMVP."

Burck scoffs at critics who see partisan politics at play in his client roster. He says his work for Bush reviewing Kavanaugh's records has little to do with representing Donald Trump-world clients in Mueller's investigation.

"I think partisanship may be getting in the way of rational thought," Burck told The Associated Press.

The weeks ahead are not the type of public spotlight Burck necessarily seeks. While he gravitates to high-profile cases, Burck appears to prefer a behind-the-scenes role as the lawyer people call when they are in a tough spot.

Those who know the New England native from his days as a clerk to retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedyrecall a bright but laid-back colleague.

"He's a pretty rare combination of book smarts and good people skills and good judgment," said attorney Jim Bennett, who was a fellow Kennedy clerk in the late 1990s and has remained friends with Burck. "People gravitate to him as a lawyer because he inspires confidence."

The son of a corporate lawyer, Burck showed ambition, working as a federal prosecutor in New York and at the Bush White House as Kavanaugh's deputy staff secretary. His private practice caseload has come to read like a legal-thriller index.

Burck was lead counsel to FIFA in the international football association bribery scandal and for insurance giant AIG over claims it misled the federal government during the 2008 finance crisis. He was counsel to the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity in its challenge to a California campaign finance law that required nonprofit groups to disclose their membership. That fight played out while Kamala Harris, now a senator, was the state's attorney general.

These days Burck represents White House counsel Don McGahn, former White House adviser Steve Bannon and former chief of staff Reince Priebus in the Mueller probe.

McGahn, who has been shepherding Kavanaugh's nomination through the Senate, has become an important witness in Mueller's investigation. Not long after the extent of McGahn's meetings with investigators were disclosed in news reports, Trump tweeted that McGahn would be leaving the White House after Kavanaugh was confirmed. Senate votes are expected at the end of September, in time for the start of the new Supreme Court session Oct. 1.

Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania law school professor who played basketball and shared happy hour beers with Burck when they were both clerks, doesn't consider Burck to be an "extreme conservative." Roosevelt expects the role Burck is playing now representing the Trump officials is "a little ideologically to the right of where I'd expect him to be."

Burck in some ways may be more of a White House outsider than ally because all three of his Trump-related clients were essentially fired by the president.

But that doesn't satisfy Democrats who see in Burck a too-intricate circle of connections. They're particularly upset that Senate Republicans only requested Kavanaugh's documents from his work in the White House counsel's office, rather than his three years as Bush's staff secretary. They say the decision has hidden from view potentially millions of pages that could shed light on Kavanaugh's thoughts on Bush-era policies, including the use of harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding.

"The process reeks," said Brian Fallon, a former aide to Hillary Clinton and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Fallon, now executive director of Demand Justice, a group that opposes Kavanaugh's confirmation, added: "Burck has his thumb in every pie."

Before the Senate hearing Tuesday, Burck's team announced it had largely concluded its document production, with more than 267,000 pages from Kavanaugh cleared for public release. That's more than any other court nominees, Republicans say, but far fewer than the 900,000 that National Archives initially estimated for the job.

In a letter to GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, Burck's team said that duplicate documents cut that number to some 600,000. An additional 174,000 pages were made available to the committee on a confidential basis and about 100,000 were personal.

While the letter says Bush sought to err on the side of openness and transparency, the Trump White House – separate from Bush – is withholding 100,000 pages on the basis of presidential privilege. Schumer called the White House's move "a Friday night document massacre."

Even before Trump chose a replacement for Kennedy this summer, Republicans knew they had a paper trail problem if Kavanaugh became the nominee. He would be the first public-sector pick from the email age with an unprecedented amount of public documents. Republicans are eager to confirm the new justice before the November election, when their slim majority is being challenged. They began crafting a workaround.

Aides to Grassley were on a conference call the day after the nomination was announced and looking for a solution. What could be called the "Burck process" would become a potentially precedent-setting approach. The National Archives said in a statement later that it's "something that has never happened before."

Republican advocates say the new system pushed the Senate more fully into the digital age, with computer software to more quickly search and sort hundreds and thousands of pages, much the way it is done at big law firms. They say the National Archives still has final review over the production, but the private lawyers – Burck hired a team of about 50 – can do the job much faster.

Grassley has welcomed the expedited review and criticized the Democratic push for additional documents as a costly paper chase.

Lisa Mascaro

onservative activists have continued honoring the memory of the recently deceased group by doing what it loved best: creating opaque vehicles to secretly funnel millions of dollars into groups aiming to reshape the legal system.

At least one new group has already risen from Wellspring’s ashes: the Article III Project (A3P).

Formed to “fight to confirm President Trump’s judicial nominees” and defend sitting judges, A3P was launched as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit May 18, indicating it will not disclose its donors. Any money funneled to A3P through another nonprofit organization is not required to be disclosed until tax returns are due months after the end of the fiscal year when that payment took place, and other funding from individuals or opaque entities like limited-liability companies may remain hidden from the public.

A3P was sculpted in the mold of its predecessors and plans to work closely with JCN. “Excited to work hand-in-glove with @JCNSeverino,my other longtime friends at JCN, and many others on the outside who understand the critical importance of the judicial fight,” A3P president Mike Davis tweeted.

Davis was chief counsel for Senate Judiciary Committee during the most recent Supreme Court confirmation battles and Justice Neil Gorsuch’s former law clerk. His talks at Federalist Society events have earned the distinction of being included in the congressional record at the request of his former employer, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). During Davis’ time at the Senate, he played a pivotal role in securing votes for Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Dubbed the Kavanaugh confirmation fight’s “warrior” and the “general” of the Gorsuch confirmation battle, Davis has differentiated A3P from other groups with a more militant approach, promising to “punch back” with a “brass knuckles approach.”

According to Davis, these punches are warranted. A3P was launched partly in response to Demand Justice, a liberal dark money group launched in 2018 as the left’s counterweight to Wellspring and JCN. Demand Justice’s arrival on the scene brought with it a significant shift to the judicial money race, which has traditionally been one-sided with the vast majority of funds from the right, most of which can be traced to JCN and Wellspring.

Indeed, Wellspring’s legacy lives on not only in the conservative dark money infrastructure it helped build but also in the inspiration it provided to their equivalent on the left.

Wellspring may be gone, but its indelible impact on the American legal landscape will long be remembered.

In addition to its enduring judicial legacy through attempts to reshape the legal system, Wellspring and the operatives behind it have reshaped the way the game is played. By helping shepherd in their chosen judges onto the Supreme court and across the federal judiciary, Wellspring and its operatives ushered in a new era of increasingly expensive judicial battles largely fueled by deep-pocketed donors whose identities remain secret.

As groups on the left put the same clandestine tactics and big money traditionally characteristic of more conservative judicial advocacy groups into play, those battles across the country may have given way to a full-blown war for the future of the judiciary.

But conservative judicial activists are not just building a covert network anymore, they’re building an army.

ref

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/only-a-fraction-of-dark-money-spending-on-kavanaugh-disclosed/

...ring the weeks leading up to Oct. 6, a number of Facebook ads started appearing in users’ timelines that either supported or opposed Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Two ‘dark money’ advocacy groups, Demand Justice and Judicial Crisis Network, pledged to spend millions on ads related to the Kavanaugh confirmation. But a new report on Facebook ad spending, released by the platform Oct. 23, shows that Facebook ads only account for a small portion of their pledged spending.

Judicial Crisis Network (JCN), a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit that does not disclose its donors, spent $483,246 in total on Facebook ads from May to October. That sum purchased 124 ads, though :{those ads did have considerable reach:(style="box-sizing:inherit;max-height:1e+06px"):}: :{— :(style="box-sizing:inherit;max-height:1e+06px"):}::{amassing potentially millions of impressions.:(style="box-sizing:inherit;max-height:1e+06px"):}:

In July, the group said it would spend over double that figure — $1 million — supporting the nominee, according to The New York Times. The group had also pledged to spend a total of $10 million on ads, including TV.

JCN has been a leading ‘dark money’ spender in each Supreme Court confirmation battle since its launch in 2005, allowing deep-pocketed donors to funnel millions of dollars into messaging about judicial nominees without ever disclosing their identities.

JCN spent just $1,900 on Google platforms but garnered more than 120,000 and up to 1.2 million impressions, according to data from the Google Transparency Report.

The biggest portion of JCN’s reported spending went to TV advertising. JCN spent approximately $3.9 million on TV ads, according to Kantar Media/CMAG estimates last updated on Oct. 8 – still millions short of the amount JCN had pledged to spend.

Comparatively, liberal ‘dark money’ group Demand Justice spent $322,178 on Facebook ads. The group said in July it would spend $5 million on ads opposing Kavanaugh, according to Politico.

Like Judicial Crisis Network, Demand Justice’s spending would also be considered ‘dark money’ since it does not disclose donors. Demand Justice does not, however, follow the more traditional model of incorporating as a tax-exempt 501(c) nonprofit, which would require it to file annual 990 tax returns and potentially other incorporation documents.:{

}::{

}::{:{Instead, Demand Justice operates as an unincorporated entity organized by a tax-exempt fiscal sponsor. That sponsor is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit named Sixteen Thirty Fund, which provides a legal home and steers money from secret donors to more than 40 different unincorporated entities that are consequently not required to file separate tax returns or other incorporation documents.}::{

}::{

}:}:This further obscures the spending of entities like Demand Justice that fall under the umbrella of a fiscal sponsor, allowing them to essentially operate with no a paper trail.

Demand Justice spent around $1.1 million on TV ads, according to Kantar CMAG estimates, and has not reported spending on Google ads. Like JCN, Demand Justice’s reported spending falls short of the total amount pledged.

That’s not to say the amounts were not spent, however, since ‘dark money’ groups like these are able to operate with minimal disclosure even while funneling millions of dollars into judicial confirmation processes.

It remains a mystery how much these groups spent on Twitter advertising since the Twitter Ads Transparency Center only provides a tool to search for limited information about ads that are only archived for a week.

Other groups, including NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, America First Policies, 45Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also purchased Facebook ads for the Kavanaugh nomination.

The totals for these groups are from all Facebook ads purchased between May and October. While all have been running ads for the upcoming midterm elections and other issues central to their missions, a sizable amount have focused on Kavanaugh.

NARAL, a pro-choice advocacy group, spent $463,914 on 5,370 Facebook ads and has continued to feature Kavanaugh in ads in the weeks leading up to midterm elections. The group is also asking for signatures on a petition that seems to serve little purpose other than list building.

Planned Parenthood’s political and advocacy arm, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, spent $979,045 on 2,668 Facebook ads. Planned Parenthood has continued to run active Facebook ads through the end of October mentioning Kavanaugh, using his confirmation as part of political advertising encouraging viewers to vote in the upcoming 2018 midterm elections.

America First Policies, a nonprofit organization that has become the main ‘dark money’ group supporting President Donald Trump’s agenda, also pitched in on the Kavanaugh battle. The group spent $250,811 on 1,598 ads.

45Committee, another politically active 501(c)(4) nonprofit supporting Trump that does not disclose its donors, spent $40,969 on 12 ads, which were all for Kavanaugh.

The ACLU spent $618,560 on 5,883 ads during this period.

Party groups spending with the ostensible purpose of influencing 2018 midterm elections have also continued spending on messaging about Kavanaugh. The National Republican Congressional Committee has been spending over $1.4 million on ads mostly focused on promoting Republicans in 2018 midterm elections.

Even Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), a senator who has been the target of much backlash over her vote against confirming Justice Kavanaugh, has spent substantially on Kavanaugh-themed ads in the weeks since the Senate’s vote. Since the first ad launched on Oct. 11, Heitkamp’s campaign has spent $765,207 on ads — all of them providing justification for her vote.

A super PAC called Be a Hero PAC also emerged as a big spender on Kavanaugh ads with nearly half a million — $486,161 — in spending on ads overall. The super PAC has more than 50 active Facebook ad buys focused on Kavanaugh targeting Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) as of Oct. 24, continuing the trend of targeting candidates in swing states with Kavanaugh messaging in the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections.

Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.

For permission to reprint for commercial uses, such as textbooks, contact the Center: info@crp.org