Connect with us

Susan G. Komen and the Cancer Within

Published

on

Editor’s note: Politics is controversial. Art is controversial. Where politics and art meet can be very controversial. We recognize the image above, and the words below, may seem controversial  to some, but we respect our readers, and believe they would rather be challenged to examine, explore, and as they seek to understand.  

In image and word this piece represents and explains the actions Susan G. Komen For The Cure has taken against Planned Parenthood and women’s rights, bowing to anti-abortion activists while supporting the sale of pink guns and events like “Shoot For The Cure.” 

The beleaguered Susan G. Komen Foundation, in the wake of its decision to defund Planned Parenthood and subsequent reversal following an avalanche of criticism, inadvertently ended up subjecting itself to harsh scrutiny and a blazing media spotlight that shows no sign of stopping just yet, and from which it can’t run nor hide.

Brand damaging allegations, comments, old press releases, and on and off the record comments and accusations leave absolutely no doubt that the organization is steeped in political ideology that permeates its decision making and fractures its credibility.

Think Progress revealed further evidence that Komen lied about there being a political motivation to their decision in their widely publicized reversal, reporting that last December, former Press Secretary for George W. Bush, Ari Fleischer, was secretly involved in Komen’s Planned Parenthood strategy (if you could call it that).

Fleischer personally interviewed candidates for the position of “Senior Vice President for Communications and External Relations,” grilling them on how they would handle the controversy over Komen’s relationship with Planned Parenthood.

Fleischer, self-described long-time friend of CEO Nancy Brinker and vocal critic of Planned Parenthood, confirmed that he would, of course, be paid once the key communications position was filled.

No doubt, this will appease the anti-abortion critics of Komen Foundation who don’t want their money going to the funding of abortions when it could be better spent hiring disgraced liars that are friends with the CEO.

The Komen Foundation did an excellent job of “borrowing” the red ribbon from the Visual AIDS Artists Caucus, who created it in 1991 as a symbol to promote awareness about AIDS and HIV. The Visual AIDS Artists Caucus was clear that the ribbon was to be used as a consciousness raising symbol, not as a trademark. While the red ribbon had an enormous impact when first worn by Jeremy Irons at the 1991 Tony Awards, it didn’t take long for it to become a rote, unconscious, politically correct fashion accessory for celebrities to wear to awards shows.

From the very outset, politics has been involved with the pink ribbon. The choice of the color resulted from an effort by Self magazine and the cosmetics company Estée Lauder to sidestep Charlotte Haley, an activist who had begun a peach ribbon campaign to pressure the National Cancer Institute to increase its budget for cancer prevention research, and did not want to commercialize the endeavor.

Komen didn’t just step in and successfully appropriate the pink ribbon, promoting it as an international symbol of breast cancer awareness. They stylized it to make it their own, and took ownership of the color pink itself.

And while they can’t actually claim ownership to the pink ribbon, per se, what Komen has trademarked — with the viciousness of the MPAA and RIAA combined — is the string of words “for the cure™” (along with 200 other registered trademarks).

In 2007, to celebrate its twenty-fifth anniversary, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation officially changed its name to Susan G. Komen for the Cure. And as the organization grew, so too did its bullying tactics.

Last year, spending more than $1 million in donor funds, Komen aggressively launched dozens of legal battles against small charitable organizations daring to use “for the cure” or the color pink to raise funds. “It is startling to us that Komen thinks they own pink,” Mary Ann Tighe, told the Wall Street Journal after Komen challenged her over the color for her “Kites for a Cure” lung-cancer fund-raiser. “We cannot allow ourselves to be bullied to no purpose.”

Komen has also been accused of “pinkwashing” by organizations such as Breast Cancer Action, by allowing companies to slap pink ribbons on carcinogenic products. Evidenced in their Think Before You Pink™ campaign . And in documentaries like Léa Pool’s Pink Ribbons, Inc., in which she questions just how far the millions raised through pink ribbon marketing campaigns, go towards fighting breast cancer. (As opposed to hiring expensive political flaks like Ari Fleischer, perhaps.) Or the book that inspired the documentary, Dr. Samantha King’s Pink Ribbons Inc.: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy.

Slapping carcinogenic products with the pinkwashed Komen stamp of approval is not the only thing that appears to counter the organization’s supposed laser beam focus on breast cancer – and its “pro life” stance.

Even though Komen continues to insist that there is no politics or ideology in their decision making and that “providing hope for a cure must drive our efforts,” many supporters were alarmed to learn of a cozy relationship between Komen and gun makers — exacerbated by Komen’s strenuous denials and the subsequent unearthing of documentation to the contrary. Komen has been slow and clumsy attempting to explain the questionable link between breast cancer awareness, prevention, treatment and research with gun sales. Accusations that further strain the entire “pro-life” underpinning of their Planned Parenthood fiasco.

Events such as “Shoot for the Cure,” or the Pink Hope 22 handgun available on Discount Gun Sales (recently removed in the wake of the accusations of politicization and right wing mission creep) give more than just a little credence to the pinkwashing accusations and embracing of what are traditionally considered right wing causes.

“We do not have partnerships with any firearms manufacturer,” Komen told Huffington Post when probed. Jim Clune, communications manager for the Puget Sound Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure confirmed the denial. “This fundraising scheme is not sanctioned by us; we had no knowledge of it. We have not received a single penny from this gun seller. It is a rogue scheme,” he claimed.

With Komen spending millions to police and protect its mark, it stretches credibility that they are either uninvolved or unaware of anything using their name, slogans or color.

Naturally, some intrepid reporting by Village Voice and others revealed that Komen’s gun loving ways are, in fact, quite well documented and guns and events in their name can’t suddenly be hidden. From the First Annual Susan G. Komen Shoot for the Cure event in Illinois  to pink rifles and pistols, Komen is clearly wielding its power to keep money flowing in wherever it can, at the expense of its scruples, and focus.

How else to explain the loss of nearly $12 million dollars in research money to eradicate breast cancer this year alone following Komen’s decision to cease funding any organization affiliated in any way, shape or form, with embryonic stem cell research.

In a cryptic statement on its web site, Komen denies “defunding” human embryonic stem cell research, vowing it would continue to “focus its research efforts on the most promising areas of science.” Adding: “To this point, embryonic stem cell research has not shown promise for application in breast cancer.” For an organization with credibility issues, this kind of obfuscation does little to rebuild their brand, or treat their constituents with the transparency, respect and intelligence they deserve.

Nancy Brinker has done a formidable job in raising funds. And promoting herself. Of that there is no denying. The billions raised by the organization renders the upward of $5 million annual salary she draws, insignificant. By comparison.

And while she may be unabashedly Republican, she isn’t overly generous with her political donations. Blogger and activist Michael Petrelis reveals of the $186,000 in total donations she’s given over the years, 98% of checks went to GOP pols and PACs, and just $3,750 went to a Democratic candidate. Of course she supports the winners like Mark Foley (who resigned in a sexting scandal) and the rabidly anti-abortion Rick Santorum, who would have Susan G. Komen give birth to the spawn of a rapist, were she alive and to suffer such a horror.

Komen’s red-faced about turn was about money and their clueless tone deafness to reality outside the rich, white Republican bubble. Maybe she was too busy checking up to see how the Promise Me fragrance - the first and only proprietary fragrance developed with Susan G. Komen for the Cure — was doing, and coincidentally sharing a name of the title of Nancy Brinker’s book, which purchasers of the fragrance were lucky enough to get for free.

Ralph Reed, disgraced chairman of an organization that has the audacity to call itself the Faith and Freedom Coalition, weighed in, calling the reversal “deeply disappointing.” Ralph Reed, known for his conspiring to steal from Native Americans with convicted lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, tricked Christians into supporting gambling initiatives whilst laughing all the way to the bank. Unfortunately for the anti-abortion critics of Komen, sad media outlets like MSNBC quote him as a spokesperson for their cause with a straight face. Other ethicists like Bernie Madoff and Casey Anthony were presumably unavailable. And Timothy McVeigh and Jeffrey Dahmer are dead.

The drumbeat to fire the failed gubernatorial candidate, anti-gay, anti-abortion Karen Handel, (who is neither a doctor nor a scientist) who was hired as senior vice president of policy reached a crescendo culminating in her resignation Tuesday. Prior to the reversal last week, a defiant Nancy Brinker told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that Handel did not play a “significant role” in this decision.

In her resignation letter to Brinker, dripping with a nauseating mix of self-pity and piety, Handel wrote: “I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it. I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve. However, the decision to update our granting model was made before I joined Komen, and the controversy related to Planned Parenthood has long been a concern to the organization. Neither the decision nor the changes themselves were based on anyone’s political beliefs or ideology. Rather, both were based on Komen’s mission and how to better serve women, as well as a realization of the need to distance Komen from controversy.”

Good distancing there, Karen. Denying poor women mammograms and putting the brakes on any kind of promising stem cell research really better serves women. Almost as much as launching trademark lawsuits keeps Komen focused on its mission. Or selling pink dishtowels.

Jim Galloway at the Atlantic Journal Constitution reports that Handel refused a severance package that might have bought her silence, opting instead for a press conference this afternoon. Rest assured, with Sarah Palin-like speaking fees in mind, Karen Handel will become the new anti-Planned Parenthood spokesperson, with national road shows and frequent visits to Fox News.

Perhaps using Komen as a stepping stone was Handel’s objective all along. She successfully convinced Brinker — preoccupied becoming the Martha Stewart of Breast Cancer — to take the decades of good work done in the name of her sister, Susan, and toss them aside by demonizing Planned Parenthood and turning Komen into a marginalized, anti-abortion political football. Except for the demonizing of Planned Parenthood, for whom Komen’s gargantuan public relations catastrophe is a financial touchdown.

And within just one week, over 50% of the graduating class of the Yale School of Public Health sought to rescind Nancy Brinker’s invitation to give a commencement speech. Although Yale chose to honor the invitation, one of the students who had signed a petition to withdraw the invite, Vanessa Lamers, told Yale Daily News that she believes having Brinker as a speaker would “tarnish the school’s reputation.” How quick and how far the mighty have fallen.

Just like a bitter, ugly frauds named Cliff Stearns or Mike Pence have failed in their blatant mission to cripple Planned Parenthood on the taxpayer’s dime. Stearns is one of those big spending, big government panderers who initiated an inquiry to determine whether Planned Parenthood is being truthful in its denial that it uses any taxpayer funding to perform abortions.

Stearns, a Republican congressman from Florida, of course,  introduced a bill in 2011 that would only provide federal funding to organizations that flagrantly violate the relationship between doctor and patient and show women unnecessary sonograms of fetuses and advise against ending pregnancies. When it comes to the living though, he’s pro-death, and believes big government should be monitoring everything from steroids to art. In 2010, with straight faces, Citizens Against Government Waste named Stearns a “Taxpayer Hero,” for a second time.

Mike Pence is an unfortunately unaborted Indiana Republican and former talk show host that loathes Planned Parenthood almost as much as he does women. In 2011 he introduced a bill to the House that would ban federal funding for abortion providers. Hatred of women and reproductive health is not uniquely Republican though. Several pro-life Democrats cosponsored the bill. The amendment to defund Planned Parenthood passed the House of Representatives easily but lost 42 to 58 in the Senate.

And so you have it. A few Catholic bishops in Missouri and Ohio shifted their gaze from the crotches of prepubescent children and sheltering and shuffling pedophiles long enough to convince their parishioners to boycott Komen because of their ties to Planned Parenthood and stem cell research. A few right wing nutcases threatened to disrupt Komen events or boycott sponsors. Along with the pro-gun, anti-abortion politicos, allowing women to die in the name of “conscience rights” of doctors. Komen, already in bed with the very people declaring war on women’s health, didn’t need much arm twisting.

“We have made mistakes in how we have handled recent decisions and take full accountability for what has resulted, but we cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to our mission. To do this effectively, we must learn from what we’ve done right, what we’ve done wrong and achieve our goal for the millions of women who rely on us. The stakes are simply too high and providing hope for a cure must drive our efforts,” declared Nancy Brinker in the wake of Karen Handel’s resignation, as if a sudden refocus on the ball, from which eyes and efforts were largely diverted, will make the whole ugly mess just disappear. But in the haze of her astonishing arrogance, Nancy Brinker doesn’t seem to realize she’s lost control and the ball has already rolled away.

Komen’s mean-spirited, politically motivated board decision to change its policy late last year would have cut nearly $700,000 to Planned Parenthood and their affiliates. But the entire plan, along with Ari Fleicher’s containment strategy blew up in their faces.

Planned Parenthood in just one week received almost $3 million — four times the amount it usually receives from the Komen annually — with high profile donations from the likes of Michael Bloomberg and Lance Armstrong. And a whole lot of former Komen donors, who didn’t realize quite who they were supporting, and won’t be going back.

In this whole drama, two things are certain.

Planned Parenthood is no Acorn, and is not going anywhere soon. Not if anyone who cares about women’s health has anything to do with it.

Nothing short of Nancy Brinker’s immediate resignation will give Komen so much as a fighting chance to regain a shred of credibility and possibly survive in a smaller, more focused capacity. It may however, be too late, given just how much the cancer has spread.

Clinton Fein is an internationally acclaimed author, artist, and First Amendment activist, best-​known for his 1997 First Amendment Supreme Court victory against United States Attorney General Janet Reno. Fein has also gained international recognition for his Annoy​.com site, and for his work as a political artist. Fein is on the Board of Directors of the First Amendment Project, “a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting and promoting freedom of information, expression, and petition.” Fein’s political and privacy activism have been widely covered around the world. His work also led him to be nominated for a 2001 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award.

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

Trump’s Scheme for Absolute Immunity From State Prosecutions Forever: Report

Published

on

Having successfully obtained delays in his federal trials and his state trial in Georgia, possibly until after the November election, Donald Trump is now seeking an “insurance policy” to protect him from any future state prosecutions if he again becomes president.

The indicted ex-president who turns 78 next month “seems convinced that if he wins another four years in the White House, state prosecutors will still be waiting for him on the other side of his term — ready to put him on trial, or even in prison, just as they are now,” Rolling Stone reports.

“To avoid such risks, the former and perhaps future president of the United States wants Congress to create a very specific insurance policy that would help keep him out of prison forever, two sources familiar with the matter tell Rolling Stone. Trump vaguely alluded to this idea last week outside his New York criminal hush money trial, when he said he has urged Republican lawmakers to pass ‘laws to stop things like this.'”

Trump “has pressured” Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill to do so, describing it as imperative that he signs such a bill into law, if he again ascends to the Oval Office.”

READ MORE: Pence Defense of Alito’s Insurrectionist Flag Highlights Its Ties to Violent Government Overthrow

Rolling Stone also notes, “Trump appears fixated on the idea of passing a law to give former American presidents the option of moving state or local prosecutions into a federal court instead, the two sources add.”

Trump “has hinted at a legislative push to limit his exposure to such criminal charges. In an improvised press conference outside the Manhattan courthouse on Tuesday, Trump said he’s been telling the Republican lawmakers who want to attend his trial and show solidarity to focus on legislation instead.”

“We have a lot of ’em. They want to come. I say, ‘Just stay back and pass lots of laws to stop things like this.’”

In 1973, while still President but under the cloud of the Watergate scandal, Richard Nixon said, “People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook.”

If Trump is elected in November, he can have his Attorney General drop any federal prosecutions he is currently facing. That may call into question, for some legal experts, the actions of the far-right justices on the U.S. Supreme Court who have delayed ruling on his immunity claim, and U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon.

On May 7, Judge Cannon indefinitely suspended the Espionage Act case, also known as the classified documents case, against Donald Trump.

READ MORE: ‘You Just Don’t Do It’: Federal Judge Denounces Alito’s Flags as ‘Stop the Steal’ Stickers

Foreign policy, national security, and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf this week blasted the judge:

“Judge Cannon is not, as commentators and cartoonists would have it, just working on behalf of Trump. She is actively working on behalf of the enemies of the US who have and would benefit from the national security breaches she is effectively defending and making more likely.”

U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) earlier this month declared, “The courts are deliberately delaying justice — and effectively denying it.”

This coming week Americans may get a verdict in the New York criminal case against the ex-president. If it comes, it may be “guilty” or “not guilty,” but it could also be a hung jury, forcing another trial which also would not likely come before the election.

If Trump is elected in November, and can get his “insurance policy” legislation passed, he could possibly avoid all criminal trials for the rest of his life.

Continue Reading

OPINION

Pence Defense of Alito’s Insurrectionist Flag Highlights Its Ties to Violent Government Overthrow

Published

on

Mike Pence is defending far-right U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, whose ethics and ability to serve on the nation’s highest court are being questioned after The New York Times revealed he had been flying a highly-controversial flag used by the January 6 insurrectionists, neo-Nazis, and a far-right neo-fascist hate group. Democrats are demanding the justice recuse himself from all cases involving Donald Trump and the 2020 presidential election, and some are also demanding his resignation or impeachment.

The former Trump Vice President, in defending Alito, may have made the situation even worse for the 74-year old jurist by highlighting the flag’s ties to revolution and the overthrow of government. In his defense Pence also encourages all Americans to fly the flag: “The ‘Appeal to Heaven’ flag is part or our proud heritage of Faith and Freedom and every American should be proud to fly it,” he writes.

“The Appeal to Heaven Flag” dates back centuries, to the American Revolution, but in recent years was very clearly co-opted by the radical religious right and was seen being carried by the insurrectionists during the assault on the U.S. Capitol, some of whom who chanted, “hang Mike Pence,” as he and his family were being whisked away by Secret Service on January 6:

MSNBC columnist Sarah Posner, who for years has been writing about religion and politics, on Thursday noted, “the more one knows about the background of the flag, the more chilling its presence at [Alito’s] house becomes.”

READ MORE: ‘You Just Don’t Do It’: Federal Judge Denounces Alito’s Flags as ‘Stop the Steal’ Stickers

Posner says the flag is “an unmistakable emblem for an influential segment of Christian nationalists who claim the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, contrary to God’s will, and that believers’ spiritual warfare is essential to restoring God’s anointed leader to his rightful office.”

“It was one of numerous Christian nationalist flags and other iconography carried by Trump supporters Jan. 6 and at the Jericho March, a series of prayer rallies that were like jet fuel for the insurrection,” Posner explains. “The Jericho March featured right-wing evangelical and Catholic speakers alongside militants such as conspiracist Alex Jones, Trump’s disgraced national security adviser Michael Flynn, and Oathkeepers founder Stewart Rhodes, now serving an 18-year prison sentence for seditious conspiracy and other crimes.”

Posner adds the flag “originated in Revolutionary times as a call to take up arms against unjust rulers who ignored the pleas of their citizens.”

Pence also refers to the Revolutionary War in his defense of Justice Alito, ignoring that the Revolutionary War was won several hundred years ago, and ignoring that a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice promoting the very concept of taking up arms against rulers, unjust or otherwise, is, as constitutional scholar and University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, Laurence Tribe wrote, “close to treason.”

Pence calls the “controversy” of Justice Alito’s flag-flying “absurd and anti-historical.” He quotes English Enlightenment philosopher John Locke, promoting his idea of the right to revolution, to replace a government.

In its Bombshell report Wednesday announcing the existence of a second Alito flag tied to the insurrectionists, The New York Times explains the Locke tie to the “Appeal to Heaven” flag.

READ MORE: Trump Adviser Scanned and Saved Contents of Box That Had Classified Docs: Report

“Since its creation during the American Revolution, the flag has carried a message of defiance: The phrase ‘appeal to heaven’ comes from the 17th-century philosopher John Locke, who wrote of a responsibility to rebel, even use violence, to overthrow unjust rule. ‘It’s a paraphrase for trial by arms,’ Anthony Grafton, a historian at Princeton University, said in an interview. ‘The main point is that there’s no appeal, there’s no one else you can ask for help or a judgment.'”

Coincidentally or not, Grafton’s “trial by arms” seems to echo Trump acolyte Rudy Giuliani’s January 6 speech in which he specifically called for “trial by combat.”

Religious studies scholar Matthew Taylor, quoted in The New York Times’ report on Alito’s “Appeal to Heaven” flag, told CBS News (video below) Christian nationalist leader Dutch Sheets “was given one of these flags and he believed that he received a prophecy when he received this flag, that it was a symbol of a revolution that would take place in America, a spiritual revolution that would reconstitute the United States as a truly Christian nation.”

He adds the “Appeal to Heaven” flag has become a “very potent symbol of Christian nationalism, Christian Trumpism, opposition to abortion, opposition to gay marriage, and the desire for a more Christian America.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: Trump’s Bronx Rally Attendance Claim Fuels Mockery as Aerial Images Show a Different Story

Continue Reading

OPINION

‘You Just Don’t Do It’: Federal Judge Denounces Alito’s Flags as ‘Stop the Steal’ Stickers

Published

on

A senior U.S. district judge is denouncing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito‘s flying of two insurrection-related flags at his homes in Virginia and New Jersey, declaring the actions “improper. And dumb.”

Judge Michael Ponsor, 77, who has served on the federal bench since 1984, writes in a Friday New York Times op-ed that he has “known scores, possibly hundreds, of federal trial and appellate judges pretty well,” and “can’t think of a single one, no matter who appointed her or him, who has engaged or would engage in conduct like that.”

“You just don’t do that sort of thing, whether it may be considered over the line, or just edging up to the margin. Flying those flags was tantamount to sticking a ‘Stop the steal’ bumper sticker on your car. You just don’t do it.”

Justice Alito’s first flag scandal came late last week, when The New York Times reported an upside down U.S. flag had flown at his Virginia home jut days before Joe Biden was sworn in as President. That flag is associated with the insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021. As of January, more than 1200 who were there that day have been arrested and charged with crimes.

Alito blamed his wife, claiming she made the decision to fly the flag upside down, which according to the U.S. flag code should only be done to signal distress. Martha-Ann Alito, her husband claimed, had gotten into an argument with a neighbor and manifested her anger by flying the “Stop the Steal” flag.

READ MORE: ‘Investigate Now’: As Alito Scandal Grows Pressure Mounts on ‘MIA’ and ‘AWOL’ Judiciary Chair

The second flag scandal came on Wednesday, when The Times again revealed an Alito insurrection-related flag, this time at his New Jersey home, where the Alitos were flying the “Appeal to Heaven” flag which has ties both to the insurrectionists, and to extreme right Christian nationalists.

Justice Alito has not made any public comment defending his second flag.

Judge Ponsor offered up a hypothetical to counter Justice Alito’s claim his wife was to blame, in this case, an example of him presiding over a death penalty case.

“Let’s say my wife was strongly opposed to the death penalty and wished to speak out publicly against it. I’m not saying this is true, but let’s imagine it. The primary emotional current in our marriage is, of course, deep and passionate love, but right next to that is equally deep and passionate respect. We would have had a problem, and we would have needed to talk,” Ponsor explained.

“In this hypothetical situation, I hope that my wife would have held off making any public statements about capital punishment, and restrained herself from talking about the issue with me, while the trial unfolded. On the other hand, if my wife had felt strongly that she needed to espouse her viewpoint publicly, I would have had to recuse myself from presiding over the case, based on the appearance of partiality.”

READ MORE: ‘Going for the Jugular’: Legal Scholar Warns ‘Trumpers’ Want to End Major Civil Right

Note he mentions as a sitting federal judge he would have applied the same standards that jurors are expected to observe: to not discuss the case with anyone, including their spouses.

And should there have been a discussion, or if she were to air her views publicly, he would be forced to recuse himself from the case.

Justice Alito has not recused from any 2020 presidential election cases, any Trump-related cases, any insurrection-related cases.

That includes the Trump “absolute immunity” case the Supreme Court heard in April, for which they have yet to rule.

The Supreme Court “recently adopted an ethics code to ‘guide the conduct’ of the justices,” Ponsor observes. “One of its canons states that a justice should ‘act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.’ That’s all very well. But basic ethical behavior should not rely on laws or regulations. It should be folded into a judge’s DNA. That didn’t happen here.”

READ MORE: Trump Adviser Scanned and Saved Contents of Box That Had Classified Docs: Report

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.