SCOTUS

[jfish26]

While I get it, $255K is not a market rate salary for someone with a law degree who has the responsibility that SCOTUS has. At the same time the SCOTUS does not have the day to day pressure/stress of the financial responsibility of keeping a business afloat like a law partner. And I don't know if there are firms that give their retiring partners a pension equal to their highest salary for life, and the medical benefits for life that SCOTUS gets.

It's a pretty secure financial future in very insecure world. It's the trade off they signed up for, they wanted the job. If more money was that important to Clarence, he should have pursued a career that paid more rather than bend the rules and grift for the extra money he wanted.

This is sound reasoning.

[Shirley]

Think about it. How sad is it that someone who overcame what Clarence did and reached the level of professional accomplishment he did, put themselves up for sale? Yeah, economic stress can make people do uncharacteristic things, but WTAF, you're a ____ing Supreme Court justice who decides the merits of our country's most difficult and vexing problems. What do you not get?

All while parroting what a "common guy" he is, I prefer the Walmart parking lots to the beaches...blah, blah, blah... Fucking lying hypocrite. The shame should be, should be, deep.

And, how ironic, (just guessing here), the one thing he wanted to avoid, that he resented the possibility of the most, that of being known as the house negro, coming into ever clearer and clearer focus, with each successive revelation of his more recent, sordid past. No, really Clarance, all those billionaires you're smoking a cigar with, Crow, Leo, et al, like you because you're you. Really...

Not to mention his ___ing wife was at the front of the effort to deny > 7,000,000 Americans their vote, and preclude the peaceful transfer of power. What ____ing kind of third-world, banana republic do we live in?

[jfish26]

Think about it. How sad is it that someone who overcame what Clarence did and reached the level of professional accomplishment he did, put themselves up for sale? Yeah, economic stress can make people do uncharacteristic things, but WTAF, you're a ____ing Supreme Court justice who decides the merits of our country's most difficult and vexing problems. What do you not get?

All while parroting what a "common guy" he is, preferring Walmart parking lots to...blah, blah, blah... Fucking lying hypocrite. The shame should be, should be, deep.

And, how ironic, (just guessing here), the one thing he wanted to avoid, that he resented the possibility of the most, that of being known as the house negro, coming into ever clearer and clearer focus, with each successive revelation of his more recent, sordid past. No, really Clarance, all those billionaires you're smoking a cigar with, Crow, Leo, et al, like you because you're you. Really...

Not to mention his ___ing wife was at the front of the effort to deny > 7,000,000 Americans their vote, and preclude the peaceful transfer of power. What ____ing kind of third-world, banana republic do we live in?

And here's the thing: absolutely NOBODY is stopping him from hanging up his robes and pursuing whatever degree of wealth and comfort he would like.

All we ask is that he not do so while ALSO having arguably as much individual power as anyone on Planet Earth.

[Shirley]

You said it earlier: I don't know what else we need to see. The Supreme Court, arguably the most powerful and least accountable branch of our government, is compromised.

I fully expect to see Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has been trying to get some degree of accountability for years, appearing on MSNBC again in the next day or two.

[jfish26]

You said it earlier: I don't know what else we need to see. The Supreme Court, arguably the most powerful and least accountable branch of our government, is compromised.

I fully expect to see Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has been trying to get some degree of accountability for years, appearing on MSNBC again in the next day or two.

And we all - each and every one of us - know how this ends.

The very moment 2024 (or 2028, or whatever) is called for an R, Thomas will retire (and unleash a goddamn tidal wave of grievance over how poorly he has been treated), and the seat will be filled by the most obnoxious, barely-legal FedSoc acolyte Papa Lenny can find.

The Ds' single biggest institutional failure is in continuing to play by rules that the other side will not.

[Sparko]

Thomas never seemed to have much of a legal acumen or career until he went over to the right wing grift grab. Which was predicated on him being exactly where they put him.

[Shirley]

You said it earlier: I don't know what else we need to see. The Supreme Court, arguably the most powerful and least accountable branch of our government, is compromised.

I fully expect to see Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who has been trying to get some degree of accountability for years, appearing on MSNBC again in the next day or two.

And we all - each and every one of us - know how this ends.

The very moment 2024 (or 2028, or whatever) is called for an R, Thomas will retire (and unleash a goddamn tidal wave of grievance over how poorly he has been treated), and the seat will be filled by the most obnoxious, barely-legal FedSoc acolyte Papa Lenny can find.

The Ds' single biggest institutional failure is in continuing to play by rules that the other side will not.

"The next generation is going to have to contend with the fact that we lost every important fight to amoral morons because we insisted on being polite while they cheated."
Michael Green

“I cannot forecast to you the action of Republicans. They are a nightmare wrapped in predation inside a ruse; but perhaps there is a key. The key is endless self-interest lacking in conscience. Facts, logic, merit, history - all be damned. There is no impediment to success when you can create your narrative afresh, every day, in every way.”

Mike Sanderson

“It combines this kind of ferrel nastiness with relentless juvenile self pity. Trump: “I’m aggrieved, and therefore I want to kick you out of my country.”
Bret Stephens on Bill Maher 6/1/18, talking about the republican party under Trump:


[zsn]

Thomas never seemed to have much of a legal acumen or career until he went over to the right wing grift grab. Which was predicated on him being exactly where they put him.

Clarence Thomas is an honest grifter - he stays bought.

[Overlander]

Supreme Court justices did not go into the gig broke

[Shirley]

.Thanks for being a Supreme Court Patreon! Don’t forget to claim your perks.

“A ‘delicate matter’: Clarence Thomas’ private complaints about money sparked fears he would resign”
— ProPublica headline, Dec. 18

Thanks for sponsoring a Supreme Court justice!

We hate asking for money as much as you hate reading these pleas, so we’ll keep it brief! Serving on the Supreme Court is a tough life that offers few perks. “The job is not worth doing, for what they pay,” as Justice Clarence Thomas once observed.

Your sponsorship makes THIS court possible. It’s donors like you who allow the justices to thrive and pursue their dreams. There are only nine jobs like this in the world, and they pay in just the low six figures. That’s why we’re so grateful to our Patreon subscribers. It’s your support that keeps our supermajority super! And happy justices rule!

We value our Patreons more than we are legally or ethically allowed to say. Whether you donate at the tote-bag level or the Harlan Crow level, we appreciate you. Since Justice Thomas raised the issue two decades ago of whether Supreme Court justices are paid enough for him to stay on the court, you’ve stepped up to fill the gap left by their taxpayer-funded salaries. We see the effects every day all through the country, not just in Texas.

Keep in mind that your support may be the only thing keeping some justices on the bench!

Here are some of the sponsorship tiers available:

$0 per month | “Citizen NOT United”
* You can offer Justice Elena Kagan some bagels and she can say “no”

$50 per month | “Bench Backer”
* The sound of a mystery toilet flushing during oral argument made available to you as a ringtone

$100 per month | “Citizen”
* Tote bag OR stuffed gerrymander in the shape of a district of your choosing

$500 per month | “Citizen United”
All the lower-tier benefits, plus one of the following clothing options:
* Booty shorts that say “CITIZENS UNITED!”
* Sweatshirt that reads “I Consider Roe To Be Settled Law ”
* Bobblehead of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. labeled “Just Calling Balls and Strikes”
* Baseball cap that says “6-3”

$1,000 per month | “[Your Name Here] and The Supremes”
* The justice will put a special inside joke in the body text of a dissent just for you!

$5,000 per month | “Lady Justice”
* All the lower-tier benefits, plus pick one group of people who should have fewer rights and tell a justice about it!
(Legally, we can offer no guarantees that the justice will listen!)

$8,250 per month or $100,000 annually | “Precedent Setters and Forgetters”
Send a kid to school, specifically the justice’s grandnephew. You don’t get to pick the school, the justice does. Alternatively, sponsor the house of a justice’s mother!

$10,000 per month | “Have Your Tort and Eat It Too”
* You get to devise a scenario where a man wants a website made for a fictional gay wedding that will not actually take place, and your justice and his friends will rule on it as though it’s a real case!
Or they might not! Obviously, we can’t guarantee any of this.

$15,000 per month | “Law ’n Order”
* Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. will ride on a private plane with you if the plane is already taking off and would have been going that direction anyway
NOTE: Don’t expect any special treatment! He is just there to be ballast for the plane.

$20,000 per month | “Salmon P. Chase Platinum”
* All the lower-tier perks, plus a handwritten note from the justice saying thanks for making special memories
* Ginni Thomas will text you

$25,000 per month | “Obergefell Down and I Can’t Get Up”
* Ginni Thomas will stop texting you

$50,000 per month | “Harlan Crow package”
* All the lower-tier perks, plus the justice will pose for a portrait with you holding a cigar or other accessory of your choice
* Justice will consider you a close, personal friend
* Justice will vacation on your yacht
* Justice will travel on your plane
* ProPublica will do a special report focusing on what good friends you and this justice are!
A Washington Post guide to the friends and patrons of Clarence and Ginni Thomas

$100,000+ per month | “Federalist”
* Host a birthday party or other special event at the court, maybe? Talk to Leonard Leo! We’re sure he can work something out!

It’s sponsors like you that keep the court going! We see you, and we appreciate you!
DISCLAIMER: None of these sponsorship opportunities should be viewed as bribery! Obviously, this is different from bribes. This is just keeping the justices in the lifestyle they deserve, and we know you expect nothing in return! A bribe would be if the justice said, “Thank you for this money, which has influenced my decision-making.” You’re just happy to support the court as the Founders intended.

[Shirley]

[KUTradition]

SCOTUS gonna decide on ballot eligibility

get yer popcorn

[jfish26]

SCOTUS gonna decide on ballot eligibility

get yer popcorn

Two things about Trump’s latest filing on disqualification - (1) taking the “voters should choose” argument to its logical end means voters can also choose a 15 year old or someone born in Kenya; (2) taking the “disqualification is about holding the office, not running for it” is, in context, a fairly plain step toward the path of political violence. Again.

I’ve come around to the view that there is really not a winning legal argument against disqualification. The words on the page - which words are the supreme law of the land, and which were made the law of the land because of a situation not so unlike this moment - say what they say.

A finding that they do not apply here would be, in my opinion, a political (not legal) outcome.

[Shirley]

SCOTUS gonna decide on ballot eligibility

get yer popcorn

Two things about Trump’s latest filing on disqualification - (1) taking the “voters should choose” argument to its logical end means voters can also choose a 15 year old or someone born in Kenya; (2) taking the “disqualification is about holding the office, not running for it” is, in context, a fairly plain step toward the path of political violence. Again.

I’ve come around to the view that there is really not a winning legal argument against disqualification. The words on the page - which words are the supreme law of the land, and which were made the law of the land because of a situation not so unlike this moment - say what they say.

A finding that they do not apply here would be, in my opinion, a political (not legal) outcome.

At this point, that's what I expect, that they won't allow him to be removed from the ballot. On the basis of the wording in the constitution I think he should be removed. And as far as Trump's "let the voters decide" argument, it's precisely because he tried to keep the voters from deciding in 2020 that he and we are in this position at all.

Unfortunately, in a country he has been grooming since at least 2010 initially with his "Birther" campaign to disqualify Obama and then on to making his followers distrust every governmental and media institution over the ensuing years including the justice dept., FBI, election results, etc., etc., not that he'll accept the results this time either, but beating him again at the ballot box seems like the lesser of two evils. Because, republicans, like they're "impeaching" Biden now for no discernible transgression, will remove democratic candidates from state ballots too, just because they can.

[KUTradition]

SCOTUS gonna decide on ballot eligibility

get yer popcorn

Two things about Trump’s latest filing on disqualification - (1) taking the “voters should choose” argument to its logical end means voters can also choose a 15 year old or someone born in Kenya; (2) taking the “disqualification is about holding the office, not running for it” is, in context, a fairly plain step toward the path of political violence. Again.

I’ve come around to the view that there is really not a winning legal argument against disqualification. The words on the page - which words are the supreme law of the land, and which were made the law of the land because of a situation not so unlike this moment - say what they say.

A finding that they do not apply here would be, in my opinion, a political (not legal) outcome.

At this point, that's what I expect, that they won't allow him to be removed from the ballot. On the basis of the wording in the constitution I think he should be removed. And as far as Trump's "let the voters decide" argument, it's precisely because he tried to keep the voters from deciding in 2020 that he and we are in this position at all.

Unfortunately, in a country he has been grooming since at least 2010 initially with his "Birther" campaign to disqualify Obama and then on to making his followers distrust every governmental and media institution over the ensuing years including the justice dept., FBI, election results, etc., etc., not that he'll accept the results this time either, but beating him again at the ballot box seems like the lesser of two evils. Because, republicans, like they're "impeaching" Biden now for no discernible transgression, will remove democratic candidates from state ballots too, just because they can.

there’s already been the threat

misery’s own ashcroft threatened to do so if the SC upholds Colorado’s ruling

[Shirley]

Two things about Trump’s latest filing on disqualification - (1) taking the “voters should choose” argument to its logical end means voters can also choose a 15 year old or someone born in Kenya; (2) taking the “disqualification is about holding the office, not running for it” is, in context, a fairly plain step toward the path of political violence. Again.

I’ve come around to the view that there is really not a winning legal argument against disqualification. The words on the page - which words are the supreme law of the land, and which were made the law of the land because of a situation not so unlike this moment - say what they say.

A finding that they do not apply here would be, in my opinion, a political (not legal) outcome.

At this point, that's what I expect, that they won't allow him to be removed from the ballot. On the basis of the wording in the constitution I think he should be removed. And as far as Trump's "let the voters decide" argument, it's precisely because he tried to keep the voters from deciding in 2020 that he and we are in this position at all.

Unfortunately, in a country he has been grooming since at least 2010 initially with his "Birther" campaign to disqualify Obama and then on to making his followers distrust every governmental and media institution over the ensuing years including the justice dept., FBI, election results, etc., etc., not that he'll accept the results this time either, but beating him again at the ballot box seems like the lesser of two evils. Because, republicans, like they're "impeaching" Biden now for no discernible transgression, will remove democratic candidates from state ballots too, just because they can.

there’s already been the threat

misery’s own ashcroft threatened to do so if the SC upholds Colorado’s ruling

DeFascist has recently threatened to, too.

[jfish26]

SCOTUS gonna decide on ballot eligibility

get yer popcorn

Two things about Trump’s latest filing on disqualification - (1) taking the “voters should choose” argument to its logical end means voters can also choose a 15 year old or someone born in Kenya; (2) taking the “disqualification is about holding the office, not running for it” is, in context, a fairly plain step toward the path of political violence. Again.

I’ve come around to the view that there is really not a winning legal argument against disqualification. The words on the page - which words are the supreme law of the land, and which were made the law of the land because of a situation not so unlike this moment - say what they say.

A finding that they do not apply here would be, in my opinion, a political (not legal) outcome.

At this point, that's what I expect, that they won't allow him to be removed from the ballot. On the basis of the wording in the constitution I think he should be removed. And as far as Trump's "let the voters decide" argument, it's precisely because he tried to keep the voters from deciding in 2020 that he and we are in this position at all.

Unfortunately, in a country he has been grooming since at least 2010 initially with his "Birther" campaign to disqualify Obama and then on to making his followers distrust every governmental and media institution over the ensuing years including the justice dept., FBI, election results, etc., etc., not that he'll accept the results this time either, but beating him again at the ballot box seems like the lesser of two evils. Because, republicans, like they're "impeaching" Biden now for no discernible transgression, will remove democratic candidates from state ballots too, just because they can.

I also agree that the most likely outcome is for the Court to couch a political decision in a (to me, flawed) legal argument around procedural matters.

[ousdahl]

Bump for Trump

[jfish26]

I'm interested to see whether the conservative justices seem more interested in searching for technical off-ramps, or whether they are more interested in the policy side.

I'm also interested to see whether Trump's lawyers try to avoid the question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection/rebellion at all. It would be a very bad outcome for Trump if the Court finds a technical off-ramp...but along the way to that offramp it finds (or even suggests) that Trump's actions meet the standard for disqualification.

[jfish26]

On the insurrection point - Trump's lawyer just argued that Trump did not engage in insurrection and is therefore not ineligible.

The lawyer defined insurrection as "an organized, concerted effort to overthrow the government through violence."

I don't think that was a very smart thing to say!

1/6 was organized.

1/6 was concerted.

1/6 was violent.

And the object of the organized, concerted violence was ... in combination with other fronts, to impede and ultimately circumvent the Constitutional transfer of power (and thus disenfranchise 81.2 million citizens).