U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Ginsburg Edition

i might just be on a different wavelength but i think they're corrupt, i think it's very clear that they would delay things as long as possible to give trump every advantage, regardless of the merit. who are they accountable to?

stepping back, do you think they're corrupt or that they're still acting in a disinterested way?

Well the decision says the court isn't ruling on the exact parameters of the immunity right now, but clearly leaves it open for them to consider later. Maybe they're anticipating several years of the appeals courts sending up rulings in this case that they send back saying, "not quite, try again."

Also they are obviously corrupt, in the literal financial and also intellectual senses.

One of the things that really gets my goat in all of this is that these same pigfucking assholes will talk endlessly about lawlessness on our nation’s streets or whatever, when they are the ones setting the example. It’s breathtakingly hypocritical, and they all deserve the rack.

The conservatives both sides and twist things to try to make their hypocrisy seem less bad. They are in the fantasy world Trump espoused in the debate where Portland was was burned down and destroyed in 2020 but the J6 folks didn’t obstruct the constitutional election process , didn’t cause police to die, and caused no damage. In their world getting rid of Chevron is just getting rid of the opinions of pointy head elitist woke geeks at agencies and democratizing the process. Plus much of the Supreme Court majority worked for Presidents like the Bushes and therefore they see what they’re doing as just restoring the imperial rule sought by those who worked in the executive branch then.

I don't think its hypocrisy exactly. Conservatives are perceived as pro "Law and Order' but I don't think this is true at all, they are explicitly pro-Order but anti-Law.

Order is hierarchical and top-down whereas law is bi-directional, or at least has the potential to be. Laws and regulations must be swept away as they get in the way of order and in the way of the big man who will impose order. Power must exist in the man not the office and rules should not be written down or codified where people might use them and access them. It is better for the rules to be hidden from view

I realize the terms are used interchangeably and conflated, but I don't see these as synonymous at all, I think they're opposites

https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-accepted-yacht-trip-to-russia-chopper-flight-to-putins-hometown-democrats

Thomas trip to Russia included in list by Dem Senators Whitehouse and Wyden referral to Attorney General requesting appointment of a Special Counsel to investigate Thomas .

Also , AOC has introduced articles of impeachment against Thomas and Alito . With Republicans controlling House this won’t go anywhere for now , but along with the steps taken by the Dem senators it may get some attention

Thomas had to visit Putin for some advice on getting the country in line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KZy3NSqnkg

go Wyden go

AOC's speech upon her introduction of articles of impeachment for Thomas and Alito is straight fire.

Of course, Dem Judiciary Committee chair Durbin would not sign on to the Dems on his committee referral to the Justice Deportment re Thomas . Durbin is probably still convinced that if he is nice to everyone, he can magically get Republicans to sign off on approving Biden nominated judges in the last few months of the session.

Justice Thomas's "Cannon-currence" worked.

(In the Trump immunity case, Justice Thomas wrote separately to suggest the special counsel was unlawfully appointed; the reasoning laid out the roadmap for this (wrong) result/decision.) https://t.co/r58hw7DK7K

— Leah Litman (@LeahLitman) July 15, 2024

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/16/biden-supreme-court-reforms/

Now Biden who had previously opposed Supreme Court proposed changes ideas, is supporting some historian Lawrence Tribe proposed ones including term limits for Supreme Court justices, and an enforceable ethics code . But he’s not proposing to enlarge the court. Also , none of this can happen unless Dems hold the presidency, the House, and get a filibuster proof majority in the Senate ( or somehow get rid of filibuster)

It came up on the politics thread last night.

It's not that hard to get rid of the filibuster...as we'll learn when Trump and the GOP Senate do it next year

https://wapo.st/3Slzp1n

30 million donation from a private equity rich guy to the Brennan Center to "launch a first-of-its-kind center pushing to overhaul the Supreme Court, after a series of ethics controversies and conservative rulings prompted rising scrutiny of the justices."

i think the private equity guy is the son of one of the KKR guys

Interesting.

But here's the real dream situation- A Dem majority in Senate with no fibuster, Dems in House and Presidency and a President willing to do this:

While justices are no longer required to travel to hear cases within their given territory, they are responsible for handling things like emergency requests and other administrative matters for appeals that come up from their circuits. That’s why you see, for example, Alito’s name on orders to allow an execution to go through in Louisiana.

It is therefore entirely reasonable to argue that given the number of issues that certain members of the court must bear, it would be much more equitable to increase the number of justices to share that load. It would just so happen that in doing so, Democrats would be able to rebalance the court after its steady swing to the right over the last several decades. Doing so would shift the court from a 6-3 conservative supermajority to one that has seven liberals and six Republican-appointed justices.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/supreme-court-reforms-more-seats-rcna162326

100 liberals, 6 conservatives pls

the glenn branca approach to court appointment

https://collaborative.evergreenaction.com/memos/how-the-climate-movement-can-use-end-of-chevron-to-close-pollution-loopholes-13

18 year term limit (seems long, but would apply to Roberts, Alito and thomas) and appointments every two years
enforceable ethics code
constitutional amendment to limit presidential immunity

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/29/us/politics/biden-supreme-court-austin-texas.html

of course the issue would be is this 'ex post facto' or going forward, as I'm not convinced Clarence Thomas and Alito won't live to be 135

for the current bench, there's a survivor style competition every two years to decide which one gets voted out

of course the issue would be is this 'ex post facto' or going forward, as I'm not convinced Clarence Thomas and Alito won't live to be 135

the Scotus Horror, surely

GOP-Sothoth

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/30/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump-immunity-6-3-biskupic/index.html

Roberts is as bad as the rest of the conservative super majority and as Chief Judge maybe worse . Article has some insider anonymous source information on how the decision was reached

he devoted five pages (of his 43) in rejoinder to the dissenting justices’ condemnation of his majority opinion. He deemed it “fear mongering” and derided “the tone of chilling doom.”

Funny. He took a similar tut-tutting stance on the dangers of overturning the key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that required federal oversight of any changes to the electoral laws of former Jim Crow states. He was blatantly wrong then, too.

https://www.slowboring.com/p/how-to-fix-presidential-primaries

sorry wrong thread! meant to post https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/31/politics/samuel-alito-supreme-court-netchoice-social-media-biskupic/index.html.

damn, that's juicy

Oh, so I just saw someone say that Alito’s draft opinions on those 2 cases being so extreme and causing him to lose support of some justices for his opinion, is the reason he didn’t show up to the Supreme Court a few times for announcement of those decisions. An Alito temper tantrum

Giant babies, all the way down

Justice Neil Gorsuch responded to President Joe Biden’s proposal for sweeping reforms to the Supreme Court in an interview that aired Sunday, telling Biden to “be careful.”

Asked by Fox News’ Shannon Bream to respond to Biden’s proposal, Gorsuch told her, “You’re not going to be surprised that I’m not going to get into what is now a political issue during a presidential election year. I don’t think that would be helpful.”

But the justice added that to Americans, the independent judiciary “means that when you’re unpopular, you can get a fair hearing under the law and under the Constitution. If you’re in the majority, you don’t need judges and juries to hear you and protect your rights. You’re popular.”

The judicial system is “there for the moments when, when the spotlight’s on you, when the government’s coming after you, and don’t you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions?” Gorsuch added.

“And so I just say, be careful,” he concluded.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/justice-neil-gorsuch-warns-biden-careful-supreme-court-reforms-rcna165085

lol that Gorsuch sees himself and the conservative SCOTUS majority (who trump considers as his wholly owned subsidiary) as "ferociously independent" or that this is a quality that improves one's judgment. i can just as easily imagine in a different interview Gorsuch claiming that he and his conservative cadre are "wholly subservient" to the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

“Independent “ ….today there is more news about more international travel Clarence Thomas took paid for by a billionaire but not previously disclosed

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/05/politics/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-hawaii-new-zealand/index.html

Paywalled site law360 tells me there are 7 vacancies on federal courts of appeals, plus many district court ones but the Congress is away from Washington for a month.

Durbin , for the District Court slots still follows the tradition of asking Republicans in the geographical areas of the district court nominees whether they will sign off on nominations.

5-4 ruling re appeals court orders

— The Supreme Court on Friday declined to let the Biden administration enforce portions of a new rule that includes protections from discrimination for transgender students under Title IX while legal proceedings continue.

The high court left intact two separate orders from federal courts in Kentucky and Louisiana, which blocked the Department of Education from enforcing the entirety of the rule across 10 states. The Justice Department had asked the Supreme Court to put part of the decisions on hold, but it declined the requests.

From CBS News

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-biden-administration-title-ix-rule/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/09/us/politics/german-princess-alito-castle-visit.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Jk4.6HTS.KM6DlIJ5uvMF&smid=url-share

Alito received gifts and opera tickets and more from right wing German princess

i bet you can't guess which german music festival this was

i'll give you clue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsb%C3%BCrger_movement love love love it!

I wonder if every rich person who got a fashion spread in 80s magazines is now a fascist like "Princess TNT"

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhux4Dz15ZBcSv6TpzBkhR7xC5igrHDLQYyXrVAtnZXsYK3wBe0QuPRRVNR-hmZW84D7e29NhHODqEbvApogGSrkcNXBSEGqKIrGLx2Mpv4Y7vqOk3hN7oUIpLj8OkDKJTzltN4bpDoeSQ/s1600/111262884.png

Alito in addition to the opera tickets made stock deals and some payments back

He is likely still not disclosing all the trips he has taken with “friends.”

Yes , Justice Jackson got Beyonce tickets earlier. An enforceable ethics code and gift restrictions are needed for the Supreme Court

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/sep/09/samuel-alito-supreme-court

Samuel Alito is the only Supreme Court member with a stake in more than two dozen individual companies — a distinction that should force his recusal from major business cases before the Court.

Alito or his wife own tens of thousands of dollars of stock in companies including…

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) September 9, 2024

There's a good reason why such assets are usually managed as a blind trust.

I think it makes sense to ban justices and politicians from holding stocks in individual companies, but also "tens of thousands" is not necessarily a crazy number where I'd assume he's in the pocket of these organizations. I'm positive there are members of congress with stakes in companies in the millions.