The Corruption of the Supreme Court

[Al-O-Meter]

This. It's the untouchable nature of the court that propagates this stuff.

Hard no. It is the untouchable nature of the court that allows the court to function. The proposed reforms would be the end of the republic within 2 decades.

I agree with all 9 of the current Supreme Court justices.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Durbin%2004.25.2023.pdf

 

[Bucknutz]

You should try reading the article cited above (post 29). I even included a link to it, did you miss that?

Again, I can’t keep repeating posts when folks are too lazy to read the original ones. I’ve already discussed the reforms I believe would help with the Supreme Court and I’ve already cited an article detailing the bribery on the Supreme Court. Listen/read rather than constantly want to argue for “your side.”

Did you even read the article? Where is the bribe? Where did he change his opinion?

Wow, look at all the court cases...


11 times the Hedge Fund came to the Supreme Court. 9 of 10 were turned down. The last one is pending. The 1 time it was taken, the court decided 7-1 in favor of the hedge fund. With which left leaning judges who also sided with the right sided judges?

Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014)

Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.: In non-core proceedings of bankruptcy courts, federal district courts have original jurisdiction and must enter a final judgment after de novo review of the bankruptcy judge's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, unless the parties consent...

supreme.justia.com

Kagan, Sotomeyer and Breyer. Show the bribe...



Read your own articles. You read the headline and then post. Nothing shows a bribe. Again for the 4th time, show me the bribe. You are making this conspiracy up.

I have agreed with you that not reporting gifts/trips is a problem and it needs to be addressed. Thats what this article is covering. Its not covering a bribe.

 

[Deleted member 365]

This. It's the untouchable nature of the court that propagates this stuff. And if you think this is new, I think you'd be pretty naive. It's just easier to find this stuff with social media. They need extremely harsh penalties and automatic expulsion combined with criminal prosecution for this kind of ****, impfho. This is the central unimpeachable pillar of our entire Republic. It must be treated as such. There should be tight standards, regular external and non- or at least bi-partisan oversight, complete with full audits and extreme transparency. These people hold the very foundations of our nation in their hands, it is the most serious job there is in our country. It needs to be treated as such and not allowed to become a good old boys club.

Switch out Thomas/Alito with KBJ and Crow or Singer with George Soros. Now imagine the outrage from the right.

And it would be completely justifiable. The BS that we are permitting for this court is unreal. I remember when I first joined public education 12 years ago. We couldn’t accept any gifts over $20 bucks in monetary value for Christmas or Teacher Appreciation and accepting bribes was an offense that would lead to termination. And we let Supreme Court justices accept hundreds of thousands from billionaire friends who have cases brought to the court. These rich donors wouldn’t be buying off these justices if they didn’t want influence. It’s ridiculous.

 

[LogGrad98]

Hard no. It is the untouchable nature of the court that allows the court to function. The proposed reforms would be the end of the republic within 2 decades.

I agree with all 9 of the current Supreme Court justices.

https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Durbin%2004.25.2023.pdf

You miss the point, or willfully ignore it, likely the latter. There is of course a policy of ethical practices, which obviously is not being followed, and has no teeth. That is the point. There is a document they subscribe to with zero accountability as to how they conduct themselves. There needs to be stronger oversight on ethical issues and forced recusal or other sanctions when an ethical conflict comes before the court. So if you're on the court and your best billionaire buddy just took you and your family to his mansion in france for a week-long vacation, and a week after you get back his case comes before the court, you would be automatically recused from the case. Simple. But it requires transparency and oversight to ensure these conflicts are known and mitigated.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

You miss the point, or willfully ignore it, likely the latter.

I did not miss or ignore your point. I disagree with it. The moment an entity with oversight is installed, the court will become subject to the political climate. The Supreme Court was built the way it was on purpose. The justices were meant to be untouchable. They were meant to be triple insulated from the political climate. They serve lifetime appointments so they don't have to worry about their popularity. They are nominated by the head of the Executive Branch who was semi-shielded by the Electoral College and confirmed by the Senate which as the founding of the country was not elected by public vote. The untouchableness was the point and it is there for a really, really good reason. For our republic to stay a republic, it needs to be that way.

Have you stopped to think about why the Supreme Court, with no oversight, has been the least corrupt of our three branches of government throughout our nation's history?

 

[Gameface]

When I first began in education 12 years ago, it was impressed upon all of us that we couldn’t accept gifts (Christmas, teacher appreciation week, etc) over $20 dollars in value and We could never accept bribes. Then there’s the Supreme Court…

More corruption!

View: https://twitter.com/eisingerj/status/1671365124886544385?s=46&t=QT7YFlZ_IlHq81PpZAhKgw

Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court

In the years after the undisclosed trip to Alaska, Republican megadonor Paul Singer’s hedge fund has repeatedly had business before the Supreme Court. Alito has never recused himself.

www.propublica.org

This is why we desperately need reform. Expand the court, term limits, and harsh ethical reforms.

It seems like it works like the slot limit for cutthroat trout at Strawberry Reservoir. Can keep if 13" or under or if 27" or over (I couldn't remember what the big end was exactly). So YOU can't take bribes or gifts above $20, but once you're getting millions worth of gifts then it's fine because it's not your fault you became good buddies with billionaires after becoming a supreme court justice. Billionaires don't know how to show affection in any other way than to throw money around.

 

[LogGrad98]

I did not miss or ignore your point. I disagree with it. The moment an entity with oversight is installed, the court will become subject to the political climate. The Supreme Court was built the way it was on purpose. The justices were meant to be untouchable. They were meant to be triple insulated from the political climate. They serve lifetime appointments so they don't have to worry about their popularity. They are nominated by the head of the Executive Branch who was semi-shielded by the Electoral College and confirmed by the Senate which as the founding of the country was not elected by public vote. The untouchableness was the point and it is there for a really, really good reason. For our republic to stay a republic, it needs to be that way.

Have you stopped to think about why the Supreme Court, with no oversight, has been the least corrupt of our three branches of government throughout our nation's history?

So do you believe the SC has never and will never be corrupted in any way? Those are some rosy glasses you have on. Or blinders.

The problem is that as soon as the balance of power shifts too heavily in one direction, the corruption increases, since the thing that keeps the supreme court from just doing whatever it wants, like overturning long-held precedent for no other than political reasons, is that it tends to be balanced, and the left and right of it brings it into balance. Shift that balance and it becomes more likely to engage in the politicizing of the cases that come before it. As we have seen most recently. Also, there is really no way to say how corrupt the SC has been in its history as much of it comes out in the form of controversial decisions, or decisions on much more minor issues that tip the scales for one political party, or even for one individual or entity, and all we get is a dissenting opinion. This nature lends itself to corruption. There needs to be some way to hold them accountable so they do not just push the agendas of the people who bribe them in non-monetary ways. And you cannot say with a straight face that you believe that does not happen.

The Supreme Court Has Never Been Apolitical

Many today fear the court is becoming just another partisan institution. But, in the past, justices sought elective office and counseled partisan allies. Some even coveted the White House themselves.

www.politico.com

 

[fishonjazz]

It seems like it works like the slot limit for cutthroat trout at Strawberry Reservoir. Can keep if 13" or under or if 27" or over (I couldn't remember what the big end was exactly). So YOU can't take bribes or gifts above $20, but once you're getting millions worth of gifts then it's fine because it's not your fault you became good buddies with billionaires after becoming a supreme court justice. Billionaires don't know how to show affection in any other way than to throw money around.

15-22 inches fwiw
Btw cutthroat trout between 15 and 22 inches is all I ever catch at strawberry lol. Which ain't bad

 

[Deleted member 365]

So do you believe the SC has never and will never be corrupted in any way? Those are some rosy glasses you have on. Or blinders.

The problem is that as soon as the balance of power shifts too heavily in one direction, the corruption increases, since the thing that keeps the supreme court from just doing whatever it wants, like overturning long-held precedent for no other than political reasons, is that it tends to be balanced, and the left and right of it brings it into balance. Shift that balance and it becomes more likely to engage in the politicizing of the cases that come before it. As we have seen most recently. Also, there is really no way to say how corrupt the SC has been in its history as much of it comes out in the form of controversial decisions, or decisions on much more minor issues that tip the scales for one political party, or even for one individual or entity, and all we get is a dissenting opinion. This nature lends itself to corruption. There needs to be some way to hold them accountable so they do not just push the agendas of the people who bribe them in non-monetary ways. And you cannot say with a straight face that you believe that does not happen.

The Supreme Court Has Never Been Apolitical

Many today fear the court is becoming just another partisan institution. But, in the past, justices sought elective office and counseled partisan allies. Some even coveted the White House themselves.

www.politico.com

I think there’s an argument to be made that the SC as an institution has never been free from corruption and has needed reform for a long time. However, I don’t think we should downplay the role that desegregation and Roe had in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. It’s because of those court cases that we saw the formation of the Christian right and the Federalist Society. They felt like the only way to fight back the tides of progress was to use the judicial branch as a cudgel. Originally, Roe was supported by the majority of protestants. It wasn’t until the 1980s when conservatives put their religious differences aside to formulate the Christian right.

There is no left counter for the society either. You don’t see going liberal law students being identified, networked, and groomed for federal and Supreme Court slots. The Society acts as a pipeline of networking political hatchet men and promoting them to federal and Supreme Court positions. Just look at Brett Kavanaugh. He owes his entire career to the Federalist Society.
Amazon product ASIN 0199385521View: https://www.amazon.com/Ideas-Consequences-Conservative-Counterrevolution-Development/dp/0199385521?ascsubtag=___vx__p_18396479__t_a&sa-no-redirect=1&redirectFromSmile=1



View: https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1108351562/roe-abortion-supreme-court-scotus-law

The Federalist Society, founded in 1982, has long cultivated law students and young lawyers, partly to ensure a deep bench of potential judicial nominees. Justice Kavanaugh joined the group as a law student at Yale.

Kavanaugh Recalls His Confirmation at Conservative Legal Group’s Annual Gala (Published 2019)

A year after his brutal confirmation hearings, the justice returned to the spotlight before a friendly audience.

www.nytimes.com

I don’t believe the courts have been under this type of assault ever, where a social group of billionaires hoping to roll back the New Deal and repeal social advancements of the previous century, wields so much power and influence over two branches of government. They own the Supreme Court, as we know all too well. But they also provided Trump
With a list of judicial candidates that he used to fill the judiciary. The Senate merely rubber stamped them, and that’s how we end with judges like Cannon and Kacs

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/22/thorough-rebuke-judge-aileen-cannons-pro-trump-order/

Abortion pill decision latest contentious ruling by Trump-appointed Texas judge

A Texas judge who sparked a legal firestorm with an unprecedented ruling halting approval of the nation's most common method of abortion is a former attorney for a religious liberty legal group with a long history pushing conservative causes.

www.pbs.org

 

[Al-O-Meter]

So do you believe the SC has never and will never be corrupted in any way?

What I believe is that Supreme Court justices are rigorously screened in a way the heads of no other branch of our government is. The entire confirmation electorate, a.k.a. ‘The Senate’, is made up of mostly lawyers which makes most of the electorate experts in the field. Every single member of the electorate have staffs to research the candidate’s life work, and every single elector has the opportunity beforehand to meet the candidates in their own office to personally ask questions.

There needs to be some way to hold them accountable so they do not just push the agendas of the people who bribe them in non-monetary ways. And you cannot say with a straight face that you believe that does not happen.

With a straight face, it doesn’t happen. It would be dead easy to see if it did and it simply doesn’t happen. There is a reason The Thriller cannot respond to Bucknutz demand to point to exactly what you are alleging. For every decision made, going all the way back to just after law school, we have detailed explanations for what was decided, exactly why, and who was affected by the decision. If on any single issue a justice had decided this way, and this way, and this way, and this way but then flipped to decide that way, it would stick out like a sore thumb. I doubt it would even take 24 hours for the internet to find a possible conflict of interest that could explain the flip if such a conflict exists.

Setting aside the screening process of those who occupy those seats and the highly documented, transparent nature of the decisions being carried out by the justices, it shouldn’t escape your notice that the most controversial and fraught aspect is the current involvement of the bipartisan body that is the Senate and the Senate Judiciary Committee in the process. The Senate is made up of whomever the people voted for and always contains members from both parties. The Senate Judiciary Committee is more balanced with 4 members from the party in the majority and 3 from the minority party. The odd number is so they can break ties. It is the bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee that stopped Merrick Garland from getting a vote. The bipartisan committee is highly political and that is what you would inject into the court system as an oversight.

I disagree with your point. The Supreme Court is demonstrably the least corrupted body in our government. The current system works and your proposed solution to the problem that exists in your imagination would do the opposite by introducing corrosive politics into the workings of the court.

 

[LogGrad98]

With a straight face, it doesn’t happen. It would be dead easy to see if it did and it simply doesn’t happen.

That ends the discussion right there. We have direct evidence of it for more than one justice right now, being sent through social media, unless you do not understand the meaning of "non-monetary". I'm sorry but taking someone who will adjudicate a case you have before the supreme court on a luxury fishing trip as "buddies" constitutes non-monetary bribery. Or paying for a house for a relative of a justice. At the very least it reflects an extreme conflict of interest and bias. But there is no accountability for this kind of interaction, and there needs to be. You can keep on the blinders all you want, doesn't change the fact that we have direct evidence that our "unimpeachable" institution of the Supreme Court is suddenly very impeachable.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

That ends the discussion right there. We have direct evidence of it for more than one justice right now, being sent through social media, unless you do not understand the meaning of "non-monetary". I'm sorry but taking someone who will adjudicate a case you have before the supreme court on a luxury fishing trip as "buddies" constitutes non-monetary bribery.

All it shows is that you don't know what bribery is. What is flying around social media is bait for the ignorant who want to believe the judges striking down Row are corrupt. Accepting bribes is a crime even if the bribe were non-monetary and even for Supreme Court justices.

Bucknutz has posts showing the timeline of any possible interactions between the fishing billionaire and Alito in his official capacity. If your opinion is an informed opinion then it should be easy to answer Bucknutz' request to point out the necessary element to show bribery. The mere existence of a thing of value and an interaction between the parties in an official capacity, even if that interaction has a positive outcome for the gifting party, is not bribery. If that is all you have then you are talking out of your butt.