SCOTUS

[Shirley]

I’m not sure what else we need to see here. History won’t look kindly on him.

^^^

I've heard that Chief Justice Roberts has no real power to "do" anything. But, if he does nothing, doesn't even give lip service to the idea of SC justices being subject to some sort of ethics standards, his reputation as Chief will go down in history as an even bigger disaster than it already is. Like, (imo), nearly everyone, I've had this feeling in the back of my mind that despite disagreeing with him on a whole lot, Robert's is an institutionalist and an honorable guy with a grasp of his position, knows this can't go on, and when the next shoe drops, he'll do something*. But his refusal to honor a request by the senate judiciary committee to appear before them, along with his lack of action, makes me much, much less optimistic and his benefit of the doubt expired a long time ago.

All that being said, this is ____ing outrageous.

No one is naive enough to think there aren't unethical people in every field, including the law, but when it's this obvious, on the Supreme Court? WTAF!

They're supposed to avoid "even the appearance" of a conflict of interest. How can we know what we know and not question Thomas' impartiality?

That should be, but apparently isn't, sufficient to wake the court from its state of denial-enabled slumber, to finally DO something!


*If his wife hadn't earned $10 million dollars as lawyer recruiter, would he be more likely to act? It makes you wonder... ...shall avoid even the "appearance" of a conflict of interest..., much?

[jfish26]

I’m not sure what else we need to see here. History won’t look kindly on him.

^^^

I've heard that Chief Justice Roberts has no real power to "do" anything. But, if he does nothing, doesn't even give lip service to the idea of SC justices being subject to some sort of ethics standards, his reputation as Chief will go down in history as an even bigger disaster than it already is. Like, (imo), nearly everyone, I've had this feeling in the back of my mind that despite disagreeing with him on a whole lot, Robert's is an institutionalist and an honorable guy with a grasp of his position, knows this can't go on, and when the next shoe drops, he'll do something*. But his refusal to honor a request by the senate judiciary committee to appear before them, along with his lack of action, makes me much, much less optimistic and his benefit of the doubt expired a long time ago.

All that being said, this is ____ing outrageous.

No one is naive enough to think there aren't unethical people in every field, including the law, but when it's this obvious, on the Supreme Court? WTAF!

They're supposed to avoid "even the appearance" of a conflict of interest. How can we know what we know and not question Thomas' impartiality?

That should be, but apparently isn't, sufficient to wake the court from its state of denial-enabled slumber, to finally DO something!


*If his wife hadn't earned $10 million dollars as lawyer recruiter, would he be more likely to act? It makes you wonder... ...shall avoid even the "appearance" of a conflict of interest..., much?

I mean, expanding the Court at this point would justifiably end up in the FAFO thread.

I do wonder if there would be a path to adding some even number of term-limited seats (something like ten year terms). So that you preserve much of the good parts of lifetime appointments, while also making the Court more representative and responsive.

[jfish26]

The number of these should be four. That way a strong supermajority among the lifetime appointees (7 or more lifetime appointee votes) controls.

[zsn]

I will donate a substantial amount of money to the favorite charity of any lawyer before the Court who says “I’ll only answer questions from Justices who haven’t accepted bribes…….but wait……..one of you don’t ask any questions”

[zsn]

The number of these should be four. That way a strong supermajority among the lifetime appointees (7 or more lifetime appointee votes) controls.

The solution is to get rid of lifetime appointments

[Shirley]

The number of these should be four. That way a strong supermajority among the lifetime appointees (7 or more lifetime appointee votes) controls.

The solution is to get rid of lifetime appointments

That.

I mean, expanding the Court at this point would justifiably end up in the FAFO thread.

And that!

[jfish26]

The number of these should be four. That way a strong supermajority among the lifetime appointees (7 or more lifetime appointee votes) controls.

The solution is to get rid of lifetime appointments

In theory, I disagree. In theory, lifetime appointments serve to depoliticize the Court. In theory, a justice not concerned about reelection should be free to follow the law without fear. In theory, lower Court turnover means greater stability and consistency in our law and jurisprudence.

In theory.

However, blatant corruption cuts at each of these desirable attributes of lifetime appointments.

A blatantly corrupt lifetime appointee is bought and paid for by political actors with business (or, ah, other proceedings) before the Court.

A blatantly corrupt lifetime appointee DOES have evergreen popularity concerns…because he or she is always looking for the higher bid.

A blatantly corrupt lifetime appointee’s votes are not principled but practical, and as such can be arbitrary, capricious and unpredictable.

[zsn]

I completely agree with one minor modification. If you put a long enough term with no possibility of extending (or a smaller extension) you’d accomplish the same objectivity but without the possibility for corruption.

As an example if one third of the court was to be changed in each presidential term (say one for each of the first three years) and a term for a judge of 12 years then you accomplish a lot. If needed a judge can be extended for another 4 or 6 years.

[jfish26]

I completely agree with one minor modification. If you put a long enough term with no possibility of extending (or a smaller extension) you’d accomplish the same objectivity but without the possibility for corruption.

As an example if one third of the court was to be changed in each presidential term (say one for each of the first three years) and a term for a judge of 12 years then you accomplish a lot. If needed a judge can be extended for another 4 or 6 years.

The other side, though, is that hard term limits would seem to pose a moral hazard risk - if you know you can’t be re-elected, why would you behave?

[Shirley]

[zsn]

If I were advising Sen Menendez I would advise that he submit a resignation letter with the resignation effective two minutes after the resignation of Clarence Thomas becomes effective.

[jfish26]

If I were advising Sen Menendez I would advise that he submit a resignation letter with the resignation effective two minutes after the resignation of Clarence Thomas becomes effective.

Nah. Resign now, and make Thomas (and all of the selective prosecution claims) look even more foolish.

[jhawks99]

If I were advising Sen Menendez I would advise that he submit a resignation letter with the resignation effective two minutes after the resignation of Clarence Thomas becomes effective.

Nah. Resign now, and make Thomas (and all of the selective prosecution claims) look even more foolish.

I would agree with this if Republicans had any sense of shame, fair play or self awareness. ⁷

[Sparko]

Word 99.

[jfish26]

If I were advising Sen Menendez I would advise that he submit a resignation letter with the resignation effective two minutes after the resignation of Clarence Thomas becomes effective.

Nah. Resign now, and make Thomas (and all of the selective prosecution claims) look even more foolish.

I would agree with this if Republicans had any sense of shame, fair play or self awareness. ⁷

It’s not about them. It’s about creating a record for this era of our history.

[Shirley]

How insane is it that a Supreme Court justice is raising $ for right wing extremists who are funding legal challenges appearing before his court?

The only thing more insane is if his wife were a key organizer of an insurrection.

[Shirley]

Robert Reich
@RBReich
Harlan Crow and a few billionaires have provided Clarence Thomas with:

-38 destination vacations

-26 private jet flights

-6 helicopter flights

-Yacht voyages

And we're going to let Thomas rule on Moore v. US, which could permanently shield billionaires from a wealth tax?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shanlon Wu
@shanlonwu
DOUBTING THOMAS:
What made Justice Clarence Thomas want to reverse his own decision?

Did it have anything to do with his previously secret attendance & never disclosed presence at fund-raiser events for the Koch Brothers network where he was flown in by private Gulfstream jet?

I write in
@thedailybeast

"Thomas’ attendance at the Koch network meeting is significant because of the Koch network’s extraordinary presence in advocacy work, including cases before the Supreme Court. “The Koch network is among the largest and most influential political organizations of the last half century, and it’s underwritten a far-reaching campaign to influence the course of American law,” ProPublica reports."

"Thomas’ attendance at these donor events “puts Thomas in the extraordinary position of having served as a fundraising draw for a network that has brought cases before the Supreme Court"

One of those cases in the coming term is that SCOTUS took specifically to consider overturning the so-calles "Chevron deference" doctrine which defers to federal agency expertise.

Fifteen years ago Justice Thomas wrote an opinion upholding this deference to federal agencies in matters involving complex technical subjects. He wrote that the agencies were better suited than the court to decide such issues. But Thomas now renounces his own decision - saying it was wrongly decided.

Getting rid of deference to federal agencies has been a goal of conservatives for decades - it's success will undermine everything from efforts to combat climate changes to public health and continue a trend of making SCOTUS the most powerful part of the government.

Long term advocacy campaigns are part of our system of civil justice. But "the problem is when these changes in law are not achieved through advocacy but rather through seeking to influence judges who sit on the nation’s highest court through financial benefits involving gifts and trips."

What made Justice Thomas doubt himself?

The Daily Beast
@thedailybeast
·
Sep 23
Thomas should be forced to recuse himself from hearing cases brought by groups that he helps fundraise for and who fly him on private jets.
https://trib.al/XLt2hdL

[jfish26]

How insane is it that a Supreme Court justice is raising $ for right wing extremists who are funding legal challenges appearing before his court?

The only thing more insane is if his wife were a key organizer of an insurrection.

Gonna be fairly wild, as we get to the final stages of all of this, to see exactly what happens when all of the myriad fig leaves and other obfuscations are stripped away and we're left, in black and white, with documentary evidence of Ginni's direct involvement in a coup attempt.

Because it's coming; Eastman will look for an offramp soon now.

[Shirley]

"...Eastman will look for an offramp soon now.

Dammit fish, I already had this Q'd up, but didn't want to make one post after another in the same thread so soon:



Not to mention, one can only imagine the stories Eastman could tell about Ginny Thomas' involvement in the coup attempt if he decides to flip...

[jfish26]

"...Eastman will look for an offramp soon now.

Dammit fish, I already had this Q'd up, but didn't want to make one post after another in the same thread so soon:



Not to mention, one can only imagine the stories Eastman could tell about Ginny Thomas' involvement in the coup attempt if he decides to flip...

Right. And when you start tugging on Ginni's finances...it's foreseeable that we might have to deal with something significantly more stark than private jet flights and rare spotted owl hunting excursions.