U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

The irony is that the lifetime appointments and the protection from interference were designed to foster independence, but like everything else "norm" based these days it's curdled and lead to the opposite effect, corruption with no consequence.

The very careful "We must soberly respect precedent, this has not happened since 1821, please see my 87 footnotes" kind of shit is very very calibrated to give the sense that there are norms. And that there is any kind of continuity between today's Supreme Court and previous ones.

I am sitting and typing on land that has seen several civil wars (including the famous one) featuring torrents of literal bloodshed so I know this is not new bullshit. But it is, still. manifestly, bullshit.

The Court can decide to adapt and evolve. But it can also decide not to. And it can also decide to do what is most in line with its preexisting ideological stances, then retroactively sanctify those stances as dogma.

Clearly, this court has decided to do what is most politically convenient for the (current and temporary) majority, and cloak it in sanctified terms.

In the near term, I assume that the GOP-appointed and GOP-manipulated majority will use its vaunted independence to do hideous things. We can hope for unlikely reform, and we can also hope that the distant future offers at least a glimmer of improvement.

We can also hope that the GOP SCOTUS majority dies in a hideous house fire.

in a hideous IHOP fire

I live in the DC area and slightly know the Scalia kids. Not saying I can make that happen, but also not NOT saying it.

Alito looks like the sort of guy who loves a good steak cooked to perfection at IHOP for dinner.

cooks probably knew who it was for and put arsenic in it

only the food runner accidentally brought it to Dan Bongino's table

A new statement signed by all nine Supreme Court justices stressing their commitment to ethics principles has come under immediate fire for failing to respond to recent calls for the court to adopt a binding code of conduct.

...Sens. Angus King, I-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said Wednesday they will introduce legislation to require the court to create its own code of conduct, as well as appoint an official to review public complaints and publish annual reports disclosing them. A similar bill had already been introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-draws-fire-ethics-inaction-rcna81544?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma&taid=64497839842be500017b3ef7&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

...which the current justices will no doubt answer with an elaborately worded "fuck you I won't do what you tell me."

All shrouded in legalese about historical precedent and checkas and balances and coequal blah blah but still amounting to a gigantic middle finger.

Like, okay, it's so very cute that you want to make a law about us. Good luck enforcing it because the case would inevitably come to... us. We who have already said "fuck you I won't do what you tell me."

I am manifestly not a fan of absolute monarchy but this is the kind of shit where I would secretly kinda love it if there were a grownup who could just step in and tell people to stop being whiny-ass toddlers and just be better.

which the current justices will no doubt answer with an elaborately worded "fuck you I won't do what you tell me."

What we need is the appointment of an independent-minded wonk equally versed in policy, optics and Rage Against the Machine. Wait, I know just the person!

https://pyxis.nymag.com/v1/imgs/1e2/658/97214dcde5465d5180e2ff718c8b30060e-1----.rsocial.w1200.jpg

just looked up ryan's post-congressional life, and yeah, he's still one of the 8 people on the board of directors at fox corporation

I might be crazy, but I think we're going to see further ethics requirements imposed upon the SC. All of them were subject to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges before they were elevated to the Supreme Court, so the logical next step is to apply that or portions of that to the Supreme Court: https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

dow posted this link over on the us politics thread: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-draws-fire-ethics-inaction-rcna81544

it seems likely that the roberts court will continue to oppose any kind of accountability

What if such imposed ethics requirements were ruled ... unconstitutional?
https://durrellbowman.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/the-piranha-brothers.jpg

Many xps but Blbackwards-hatted buff/swole Ryan memeage will never die.

I am okay with that. That dude needs to be savagely mocked to the grave.

(Sidenote: remember when he said that his music taste ranged from AC/DC to Zeppelin? It was a decently cute line in the moment, granted. But no one really alphabetized their music this way. Led Zeppelin is alphabetized under L, not Z, you fucking psychopath.

It's as bad as shelving "Jane Eyre" under E or "Mrs. Dalloway" under D. Sheesh. Are there literally no Republican librarians?

he's probably so dumb he thought Led Zeppelin was a person.

it seems likely that the roberts court will continue to oppose any kind of accountability

I am shocked at this

This is my shocked face

Nah, never mind, I am not in the least bit shocked

Carry on

Neanderthal: by the way, which one's Pink?

🚨🚨🚨SCOOP: New whistleblower docs show Jane Roberts, who is married to SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts, made $10.3 million placing lawyers at elite firms — https://t.co/uB82RgJ8YC

— Mattathias Schwartz (@Schwartzesque) April 28, 2023

More details on Justice Roberts wife profit taking and he not recusing himself

Click on the story to see the line-item spreadsheet of her commissions.

At least one of the firms that paid Jane Roberts — WilmerHale — later argued before SCOTUS. John Roberts did not recuse, and voted in favor of WH’s client.

— Mattathias Schwartz (@Schwartzesque) April 28, 2023

Seems bad

I have a feeling there is probably a, erm, bipartisan desire to not look to deeply into the court's ethical history

Never thought I'd be into Business Insider but they seem like real muckrakers these days

X-post - you can make generic both sides allegations about ethics issues with no evidence , but the Republicans with a 6-3 majority have no interest in new ethics rules now, and no one in the press has come up with allegations against the 3 Dem nominated Justices. Yes, the 9 Justices signed together, but that may be due to pressure from Chief Justice

Paul Ryan, who thought that the Path to Prosperity should be built on the bones of the sick and the old, is now being presented as the voice of moderation and an independent-minded wonk.

he's probably so dumb he thought Led Zeppelin was a person.

My ... let's see, my wife's cousin's husband? Anyway, my wife's cousin's husband went to college with Paul Ryan. Apparently they were partnered up for some project in I can't remember what class (my wife's cousin's husband might have picked Paul Ryan because he was cute), and as they were gearing up for the final presentation, Paul Ryan came up to him and said (very paraphrasing) "look, you are getting an A in this class because you are a hard worker. In fact, I know you will do all the work necessary to get an A in this class whether I help out or not. Since I'm not as good at this as you are, and probably won't get an A no matter how we do on this project, why don't you just do all the work without me so that I don't get in your way?"

Pretty sure that's Socialism.

being presented as the voice of moderation and an independent-minded wonk

when your peer group is busily endorsing Q-Anon theories, embracing Jan 6 rioters as true patriots, and posing for Xmas cards with all the members of their family gleefully brandishing semi-automatic weapons, then simply by avoiding these activities the media will gladly do the rest of the work for you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/04/28/alito-leaker-dobbs-wsj/

good news - the dobbs leaker definitely wasn't alito, says alito

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said in an interview earlier this month that he has a “pretty good idea” who leaked his draft Supreme Court opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade and its constitutional right to abortion last year, but that neither he nor the court can prove it.

...“I personally have a pretty good idea who is responsible, but that’s different from the level of proof that is needed to name somebody,” Alito said, according to the story published online Friday. He said he was sure the leak “was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft … from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside — as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.”

Alito said the theory that the draft was leaked by someone on the right to lock in the five votes necessary to overturn Roe “is infuriating to me.”

“Look, this made us targets of assassination,” Alito told his interviewers. “Would I do that to myself? Would the five of us have done that to ourselves? It’s quite implausible.”

...
Without commenting on Thomas, Alito said he believes that reports about alleged ethical violations by justices are attempts to damage the court’s credibility now that conservatives are firmly in control. “We are being hammered daily, and I think quite unfairly in a lot of instances. And nobody, practically nobody, is defending us,” he said.

“And then those who are attacking us say, ‘Look how unpopular they are. Look how low their approval rating has sunk.’” Alito said. “Well, yeah, what do you expect when you’re — day in and day out, ‘They’re illegitimate. They’re engaging in all sorts of unethical conduct. They’re doing this, they’re doing that’?”

breaking: alito a whiny prick, sucks

The poor quality of his reasoning just rises off those statements like the 'stink waves' off a cartoon of a pile of shit. This man has zero awareness of how he sounds to others, because anyone who disagrees with him is not worthy of his notice.

Yeah, he's so bad and dumb and punchable.

That last paragraph I quoted…jfc. I mean, I am very forgiving of poor reasoning, I do it all the time myself, it’s a very human quality, we all do it sometimes. However he’s a fucking sc justice, he is supposed to be good at things like understanding cause and effect

zach, they're doing this and doing that

Agreed obv. Dude offers an unsubstantiated theory that just so happens to align with his political alliances. That’s the kind of reasoning I’d use but I am not a USSC Justice.

He is bad and deserves to be hated.

i was fine with doing this

it was when they started doing that

Doing this and signing that

In his recent dissent in the abortion pill case, he suggested with no citation or support that the Justice Department was going to refuse to enforce the Trump appointed district judge opinion if the Supreme Court upheld it. Alito’s just a Fox watching conspiracy theorist but with lots of power

I think the more disturbing thing about that to me was that the Justice Department employees quoted in the press gave every inclination that not only would they obey the ruling, but wouldn't use any of the tools they were legally allowed to use, like "non-enforcement discretion notices". one of them saying it'd set a 'bad precedent'. one of the attorneys posted this on Twitter and got thoroughly roasted over the coals.

I'm about 99% sure if SCOTUS had actually refused to issue a stay on Kacsmaryk's ruling, the Biden admin Justice Department and FDA would have just said "aw shucks, well sorry guys, SCOTUS said no and we're all out of options" and just let it happen.

so not only was there no indication that they'd defy a court order, there were actually comments on record that pretty much told Alito and company they wouldn't do that (which, frankly, is surrendering)

Yes , good points.

Was just reading more background re Kacsmaryk who donated to Senator Josh Hawley's campaign and then Hawley's wife brought the abortion pill case to Kacsmaryk

2023: Hawley’s DONOR judge rules in favor of the lawsuit led by Hawley’s WIFE, calling for a near-immediate ban on the abortion drug mifepristone in all 50 states.

And it's the first time a judge has ever tried to unilaterally take a drug off the market against FDA objections.

— Lucas Kunce (@LucasKunceMO) April 20, 2023

yep. frankly the most ridiculous thing about the whole case, how blatant it was.

More on George Mason U’s Scalia Law School:

“The documents show how Scalia Law has offered the justices a safe space in a polarized Washington — an academic cocoon filled with friends and former clerks, where their legal views are celebrated, they are given top pay and treated to teaching trips abroad, and their personal needs are anticipated, from lunch orders to, in Justice Gorsuch’s case, house hunting.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/30/us/supreme-court-scalia-law-school.html

I love this url: https://www.wonkette.com/sam-alito-is-the-pettiest-bitch-alive

xpost They've built a huge infrastructure to prevent Justices from going Souter on them

You mean the Antonin Scalia School of Law?

Home of the mighty ASSOLs?

The Supreme Court takes up a case asking it to overrule Chevron deference to administrative agencies. Review limited to the second question presented. Justice Jackson is recused. https://t.co/GmraMlo2rK pic.twitter.com/Em7nh3KIWM

— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) May 1, 2023

Good morning!☕️

The Senate Judiciary Committee is about to begin its post-Clarence-Thomas-ethics-scandal hearing on Supreme Court ethics reform.

Dick Durbin really wants bipartisan action.

Only one GOP senator has proposed doing anything at all. https://t.co/Ngdu6o3odd

— Jennifer Bendery (@jbendery) May 2, 2023

Does that "anything at all" involve deer?

In the headlights. Murkowski is only Republican who is willing to do talk about doing anything. Apparently at the hearing Republicans alleged things about Dem appointed judges, but they just want to both sides the issues at the hearing and not actually do anything. Plus the want to claim that its all sour grapes from Dems because of the current make up of the court and the decisions

Scalia should've died in 2021.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor provided the early framework that steered the outcome in the dispute over the 2000 presidential election and ensured George W. Bush would win the White House over Al Gore, Supreme Court documents released on Tuesday show.

Memos found in the newly opened files of the late Justice John Paul Stevens offer a first-ever view of the behind-the-scenes negotiations on Bush v. Gore at the court. They also demonstrate the tension among the nine justices being asked to decide a presidential election on short deadlines.

The documents opened at the Library of Congress help reveal how the now-retired O’Connor, the first woman on the high court and a justice steeped in politics from her early days in the Arizona legislature, partnered with Justice Anthony Kennedy, effectively squeezing out an argument advanced by then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

And we have Rehnquist to thank for the "independent legislature" bullshit that Trump's lawyers used in 2020 and that SCOTUS is reviewing now.

Rehnquist even worse than I thought and of course Scalia, and Thomas all in on that nonsense.