United States Supreme Court Has Lost Its Legitimacy Because Of Partisan Politics; Supreme Court “Champing At Bit” To Interfere With Elections Laws To Disenfranchise Voters By Empowering Legislatures To Set Aside Election Results Excluding The Courts

Calls are being made for the impeachment of Justices Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett for lying under oath during their Senate confirmation hearings. All 3 joined the other 3 conservatives in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn the two landmark abortion cases of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The decision returns decisions on the legality of abortion back to the states.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, accused the conservative justices of lying without mentioning them by name. In a joint statement, Pelosi and Schumer said in part:

“Several of these conservative Justices, who are in no way accountable to the American people, have lied to the U.S. Senate, ripped up the Constitution and defiled both precedent and the Supreme Court’s reputation, all at the expense of tens of millions of women who could soon be stripped of their bodily autonomy and the constitutional rights they’ve relied on for half a century.”

Democrat West Virgina Senator Joe Manchin who voted to confirm Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the court said he was “alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided” and that he had “trusted [them] when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent.”

Republican Main Senator Susan Collins, a pro-abortion rights Republican who voted to confirm all of former President Donald Trump’s nominees to the court, said it had “abandoned a 50-year precedent at a time that the country is desperate for stability … I feel mislead.”


On June 24, Republican Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski issued the following statement after the Supreme Court released its decision on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, to overturn Roe v. Wade, placing the responsibility on states to set their own abortion laws:

“Today the Supreme Court went against 50 years of precedent in choosing to overturn Roe v. Wade. The rights under Roe that many women have relied on for decades—most notably a woman’s right to choose—are now gone or threatened in many states. … Alaskan courts have interpreted abortion rights as protected under our State Constitution, but with this decision, women in other parts of the country will face a different reality that limits their health decisions, even in extreme circumstances. In the wake of this ruling, it is up to Congress to respond.”

When Vice President Kamala Harris was asked about senators who have claimed that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh misled them during their confirmation hearings on whether Roe was settled law and with some Democrats calling for their impeachment, Harris did not weigh in on whether they should be impeached. However Vice President Harris did say this:

“I start from the point of experience of having served in the Senate [at the time of their confirmation]. I never believed them. I didn’t believe them. It’s why I voted against [them]. … I think all of us share a deep sense of outrage that the United States Supreme Court took a constitutional right that was recognized, took it from the women of America. … We are now looking at a case where the government can interfere in what is one of the most intimate and private decisions that someone can make. … We need Congress to act … which means put into law, the rights that again, we took for granted, but clearly have now been taken from the women of America. … [It’s now up to Congress to act.] … If you think about the Voting Rights Act, Congress acted, Civil Rights Act, Congress acted because where there was any question, especially through the courts or any other system, about the sanctity of these rights, we decided as a nation, we would put it into law. … That’s what we need to do with Roe and the principles behind Roe.”

The link to review the Canons is here:



Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were all nominated by then President Donald Trump and confirmed by a then Republican Controlled United States Senate. What all 3 Justices said during their confirmation hearings merits review:


During his 2017 confirmation hearings, Republican Neil M. Gorsuch would only characterize Roe as “a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed by several subsequent cases including in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.”

Gorsuch said that precedent fills out U.S. law and he said this:

“A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law. What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward.”

During his 2017 confirmation hearing, Gorsuch refused to signal how he would rule in future cases on abortion and said this:

“For a judge to start tipping his or her hand about whether they like or dislike this or that precedent would send the wrong signal … It would send the signal to the American people that the judge’s personal views have something to do with the judge’s job.”

When California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein pressed him on whether Roe had achieved a status as a “super-precedent,” Gorsuch just said that the ruling “has been reaffirmed many times, I can say that.”


In his 2018 confirmation hearing, Republican Brett Kavanaugh was questioned repeatedly about Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Kavanaugh echoed Gorsuch by saying that Roe was an “important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times.”

Kavanaugh also indicated during his Senate confirmation hearing that he would be open to overturning “settled law,” including Roe, citing a long list of past Supreme Court cases that had been overturned.

Kavanaugh told the Senate:

“[Roe v. Wade] is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times. … It is not as if it is just a run of the mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.”

California Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein pressed Kavanaugh and asked him what he meant by “settled law” and whether he believed Roe to be correct law, Kavanaugh said he believed it was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and should be “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis,” the notion that precedents should not be overturned without strong reason.

When questioned by conservative senators he said there’s a model for overruling settled precedents, that begins with evaluating whether the prior decision was grievously wrong” a term that would surface in the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh explained it this way:

“You follow the decision that has been set forth by the Supreme Court, subject to the rules of stare decisis. And you see that time and again. That is part of stability. That is part of predictability. That is part of impartiality. That is part of public confidence in the rule of law that it is not just going to move pillar to post, that the law is stable and foundational. … Again, it is not — Brown v. Board shows it is not absolute. And that is a good thing, but it is critically important to the impartiality and stability and predictability of the law.”


In her 2020 confirmation hearing, Republican Justice Amy Coney Barrett was more reserved on the Roe v. Wade precedent during her confirmation hearings. During her confirmation process, reports surfaced that Barrett had once openly advocated for overturning Roe v. Wade in a 2006 ad published in the South Bend Tribune by St. Joseph County Right to Life group, which she and her husband signed. Barrett was, at the time, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame.

During her confirmation hearing, Barrett said she was committed to obeying “all the rules of stare decisis.” Barrett had this to say:

“If a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. … I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else.”

Barrett was also pressed on why she would characterize Brown v. Board of Education, but not Roe v. Wade, as super precedent.

She said at the time:

“Roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that does not mean that Roe should be overruled. It just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. The Board that no one questions anymore.”

The links to quoted news source material are here:




Surprisingly, the 9 justices of the Supreme Court are the only federal judges within the entire federal court judicial system who are not bound by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. Simply put, there is no code of judicial conduct for United States Supreme Court Justices, therefor impeachment is the only way to remove them for misconduct. Like virtually all Federal Judges, Supreme Court Justices are lifetime appointments made by the President of the United States and subject to approval by the United State Senate by a mere majority vote.

In 1973, the “Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges” was adopted and it includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties, including when judges should recuse or disqualify themselves from presiding over a case and engagement in a variety of outside activities. This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges.

The “Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges” does NOT apply to United States Supreme Court Judges. They are under no obligation to follow it. In other words, Supreme Court Justices have no ethical boundaries they are required to follow by law and politically can do whatever they want as long as they do not break the law.

There are only 5 Canons of conduct that apply to federal judges and those merit review in light of the fact that they do not apply to United States Supreme Court Justices. The 5 canons themselves and the accompanying commentary are too lengthy to be quoted in their entirety, with a link provided below, but the most relevant portions of the 5 canons for discussion herein are as follows:

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

“An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.”

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities.

“(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

(B) Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness.

(C) Nondiscriminatory Membership. A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin.”

Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently

“The duties of judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the following standards:

(A) Adjudicative Responsibilities.

(1) A judge should be faithful to, and maintain professional competence in, the law and should not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
(2) A judge should hear and decide matters assigned, unless disqualified, and should maintain order and decorum in all judicial proceedings.
(3) A judge should be patient, dignified, respectful, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. A judge should require similar conduct by those subject to the judge’s control, including lawyers to the extent consistent with their role in the adversary process.
(4) A judge should accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, and that person’s lawyer, the full right to be heard according to law.
… .
(B) Administrative Responsibilities. …

(C) Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned … ”

Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities that are Consistent with the Obligations of Judicial Office

“A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects. However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with the performance of the judge’s official duties, reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below. … .

(A) Law-related Activities. …

(D) Financial Activities. … “

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

“(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization.
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or
(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.


The link to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges is here:



The need for the Code of Judicial Conduct for United States Judges to be applied to United States Supreme Court Justice came into sharp focus because of the conduct of “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

In the fall of 2020, after Joe Biden defeated Donald Trump in the presidential election, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, repeatedly urged White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to attempt to overturn the election results, according to text messages obtained by congressional investigators.

Ginie Thomas wrote to Meadows on November 10 after the election was officially called for Biden and said:

“Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!! … You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”

The text messages were obtained by the House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack. The content of the messages was first reported by The Washington Post and CBS News.

Meadows did not respond to all of Thomas’ missives but did texted in late November that Trump’s challenge of the election results was “a fight of good versus evil” and he said:

“Evil always looks like the victor until the King of Kings triumphs,” he wrote. “Do not grow weary in well doing. The fight continues. I have staked my career on it. Well at least my time in DC on it.”

Thomas replied:

“Thank you!! Needed that! This plus a conversation with my best friend just now … I will try to keep holding on. America is worth it.”

The link to quoted source material is here:


Canon 2, Cection (B) entitled “Outside Influence” of the Code of Judicial would come into play with respect to Ginie Thoms. It states:

“A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. … . ”

Only Justice Thomas knows for sure to what extent his wife has had on his deliberations as a justice and to what extent he encouraged his wife to contact Mark Meadows and the White House to block the peaceful transition of power.


Article One of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the federal government, the United States Congress. Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides that he House of Representatives “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment”. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 assigns the Senate sole responsibility to try impeachments. Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 provides that the sanctions for an impeached and convicted individual are limited to removal from office and potentially a bar from holding future office.

With respect to United States Supreme Court Justices, the House of Representatives has the exclusive power to impeach Supreme Court Justices and the Senate the exclusive power to hold a trial to determine whether removal is appropriate. The House can impeach a Supreme Court Justice with a simple majority vote. However, a Supreme Court Judge may only be removed from office following a trial and a vote to convict by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

The United States Constitution provides little guidance as to what offenses constitute grounds for the impeachment of federal judges. As with other government officials, judges may be removed following impeachment and conviction for Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. Otherwise, if there are no grounds for impeachment and removal, under Article III, Section 1, judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior” essentially making Supreme Court Justice appointments lifetime appointments.

There is no doubt lying to congress as did Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to get their lifetime appoints would be grounds for impeachment by the House of Representatives as a “high crime and misdemeanor”, but is not at all likely they would be convicted, as was the case with Der Führer Trump, by the United State Senate that has a partisan split of 50-50.


On June 6, it was reported that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a North Carolina redistricting challenge that could have profound implications for how states manage presidential and congressional elections. The appeal from North Carolina Republican lawmakers could significantly weaken the ability of state courts nationwide to review laws for federal elections at a time when the Supreme Court has become increasingly partisan.

The case of Moore v. Harper involves and appeal where the North Carolina Supreme Court undid an extreme partisan gerrymander of the state’s congressional map that would have given Republicans a large advantage in races for House seats. Several Republican state legislators asked the Supreme Court to restore the biased map for this spring’s primary elections. Their emergency filings claimed that the North Carolina state supreme court didn’t have the power to even review the legislatively drawn congressional map, despite the fact that the map violated several guarantees in the state’s constitution, because, in their view, neither state courts nor state constitutions should have a say in how federal elections are run. Republicans are challenging not only whether the North Carolina court got its decision right but also whether state courts have any role to play in reviewing laws passed by legislatures that deal with federal elections.

Links to quoted and related sources



Republicans control a majority of state legislatures and there is a coordinated effort to disenfranchise voters by not allowing for “mail in” balloting and requiring in person voting on election day. Americans are losing faith in elections after years of hearing false claims of widespread fraud from former President Der Führer Donald Trump and his allies. After the 2020 presidential elections and Der Führer Trump’s unfounded allegations of voter fraud, Republican control legislatures rushed to change their election laws asserting election law reforms were needed to protect the vote from widespread fraud when there is no fraud.

At the center of the dispute is a clause in the Constitution that delegates responsibility for federal election rules to the “legislature” of each state subject to oversight by Congress. Republicans are saying the plain meaning of the constitution is that state legislatures, and only state legislatures, have the power to set those rules. Such a reading of the clause would cut governors, election officials and state courts out of the rulemaking process giving all power over federal elections to the legislatures who could simply invalidate an election saying it was fraudulent.

At least 4 of the conservative justices have already signaled varying levels of interest in the idea of giving legislatures more power, embracing “the independent state legislature doctrine”. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that the North Carolina lawsuit presented an “important” questions and that “both sides” had “advanced serious arguments.” Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts have long been viewed as near the ideological center of the court but given how they voted to overturn “Roe v. Wade”, they could easily change their minds and Kavanaugh has shown he is not above lying saying he is impartial and has not made a decision as he did with Roe v. Wade.

Michael Kang, a law professor and elections expert at Northwestern University had this to say:

“We’re in a different era now that we really opened the door to – however you want to think about it – manipulating or changing the election law in ways that seem designed to advantage one side. … “



Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a “strict constructionist” in interpreting the United States Constitution. Strict constitutional constructionist stands for the proposition that that a constitutional right does not exist if it is not specifically provided for in the constitution and such rights are reserved for the states to decide. Such rights include same sex marriage, access to birth control, the right to privacy and perhaps even inter racial marriage.

Justice Thomas writes that the Supreme Court should reconsider rights like birth control and same sex marriage in future decisions. Thomas agreed that the Roe v. Wade reversal ruling itself does not apply to other cases saying “the court’s abortion cases are unique” because they involve protecting a life and justices only considered this one set of circumstances, rather than rights granted through “substantive due process” as a whole.

However, Justice Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion:

“In future cases, we should follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away. … Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.”

Justice Thomas specifically said the court “should consider” reversing other precedents and he wrote:

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. … After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.”

Thomas argued that using the due process clause to uphold these rights is a “legal fiction” that’s “particularly dangerous” and believes the court should issue a ruling saying the court cannot grant civil rights using that legal argument.

With his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas invites a reversal of many constitutional rights not found in the constitution, including gay marriage. The United States Constitution also does not contain any provision that marriage is a constitutional right. Thomas is married to a white woman and the question is if he will also want to reverse the case of Loving v. Virginia where the United Sates Supreme Court case struck down state laws banning interracial marriage in the United States.

The plaintiffs in the case were Richard and Mildred Loving, a white man and Black woman whose marriage was deemed illegal according to Virginia state law. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that “anti-miscegenation” statutes were unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The decision is often cited as a watershed moment in the dismantling of “Jim Crow” race laws.


Thomas Jefferson himself warned of “strict constructionist” like Clarence Thomas in interpreting the United States Constitution. Thomas Jefferson warned us not to regard the United States Constitution as sacred writ too sacred to be touched but a document that must “keep pace with the times”. On July 12, 1816, Jefferson wrote:

“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment.

I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead.

I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.

But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.


The United States Supreme Court since its very inception has been viewed with a unique sense of awe and respect because it consistently interpreted the United States Constitution as a “living, evolving document” meaning one that evolved and ensured and protected civil rights and remedies to conform with changing times, changing norms, changing viewpoints.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

“Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”

Without such constitutional evolution, slavery would still exist in the United States, woman would not be allowed to vote, discrimination based on a person’s gender, race, color or religion would be allowed, interracial marriage would be illegal, and the doctrine of “sperate but equal” and Jim Crow laws would still be the law of the land.

The United States Supreme Court’s legitimacy has always depended upon the public perceiving the court and its decisions as being based on the rule of law, prior precedent known as “stare decisis” and not partisan politics. So much so that labels such as “liberal”, “progressive”, “moderate” and “conservative” are used in referring to Supreme Court Justices’ philosophies instead of party affiliations. Supreme Court Justice’s and federal judge’s party affiliations are never identified or reported by the media and it’s a charade.


The very nature of the process of selecting a Supreme Court Justices is as partisan as it gets. The overlap between “judicial ideology” and the “political ideology” and party affiliation of those who select supreme court justices is undeniable to the point that they have come to be one and the same. The President nominating and the Senate having a confirmation process leads to the selection of Supreme Court Justices whose ideological approach to interpreting the law is identical with the views shared by the political party in power in the White House and the US Senate.

Ryan C. Williams, assistant professor of law at Boston College Law School, put it in perspective in a column written for MSNBC when he wrote:

“The polarized nature of our politics has contributed to a court that is closely divided on numerous hot-button political issues — such as abortion, gun rights, campaign finance regulation and affirmative action. In the 1980s and 1990s, the partisan nature of these divisions was mitigated to some extent by justices whose views did not match the ideology associated with the political party of the president who appointed them, such as David Souter and Byron White. But since the 2010 retirement of [the very liberal] John Paul Stevens, appointed by President Gerald Ford, all of the Justices appointed by Republican presidents have been recognizably more conservative than the justices appointed by Democrats.

The court’s perceived partisan orientation has been further exacerbated by the gamesmanship and spectacle surrounding confirmations. The court’s three most recent appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett — have each taken office amidst controversy. Gorsuch’s appointment was made possible by the Republican-controlled Senate’s decision to deny a hearing or vote to Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, resulting in a 14-month vacancy on the court. Kavanaugh’s confirmation was placed in jeopardy by accusations of sexual assault that he denied, leading to a highly contentious and much-publicized confirmation hearing. Barrett’s confirmation was rapidly pushed through the Senate shortly before the 2020 election by the same Republican Senate leaders who had earlier used the pending presidential election as an excuse not to vote on Garland.

The willingness of Republican politicians to play hardball with the confirmation process and the resulting shift in the balance of power on the court has left raw feelings on the left and led to increasing calls for retaliatory measures — including court-packing. The nominees were not themselves the architects of these strategies. But nor were they mere passive bystanders. Their willingness to accept and press forward with their nominations involved at least a degree of cooperation with the sharply partisan methods through which their appointments were secured.”


Part of the greatness of the Supreme Court has always been that the public has had a tremendous respect for the Supreme Court because it has been viewed by and large as “fair and impartial” and “a political” not subservient to any political party nor religious philosophy. With the reversal of Roe v. Wade and the reversal of a well settled constitutional right for women, the United State Supreme Court has lost its legitimacy and credibility with the American people.

As the saying goes, elections have consequences. The 2022 midterm elections are shaping up to be one of the most consequential elections in our history where the Supreme Court is on the ballot as well as the control of congress, not to mention our basic right to vote in an election.

A story has been told and retold about another founding father Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was walking out of Independence Hall after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when someone shouted out, “Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?” To which Franklin supposedly responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

This entry was posted in Opinions by . Bookmark the permalink.


Pete Dinelli was born and raised in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He is of Italian and Hispanic descent. He is a 1970 graduate of Del Norte High School, a 1974 graduate of Eastern New Mexico University with a Bachelor's Degree in Business Administration and a 1977 graduate of St. Mary's School of Law, San Antonio, Texas. Pete has a 40 year history of community involvement and service as an elected and appointed official and as a practicing attorney in Albuquerque. Pete and his wife Betty Case Dinelli have been married since 1984 and they have two adult sons, Mark, who is an attorney and George, who is an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Pete has been a licensed New Mexico attorney since 1978. Pete has over 27 years of municipal and state government service. Pete’s service to Albuquerque has been extensive. He has been an elected Albuquerque City Councilor, serving as Vice President. He has served as a Worker’s Compensation Judge with Statewide jurisdiction. Pete has been a prosecutor for 15 years and has served as a Bernalillo County Chief Deputy District Attorney, as an Assistant Attorney General and Assistant District Attorney and as a Deputy City Attorney. For eight years, Pete was employed with the City of Albuquerque both as a Deputy City Attorney and Chief Public Safety Officer overseeing the city departments of police, fire, 911 emergency call center and the emergency operations center. While with the City of Albuquerque Legal Department, Pete served as Director of the Safe City Strike Force and Interim Director of the 911 Emergency Operations Center. Pete’s community involvement includes being a past President of the Albuquerque Kiwanis Club, past President of the Our Lady of Fatima School Board, and Board of Directors of the Albuquerque Museum Foundation.