The Corruption of the Supreme Court

[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

 

[The Thriller]

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.

 

[Red]

View: https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/sen-whitehouse-alito-s-excuses-are-so-preposterous-they-re-almost-incriminating-184225349871

 

[LogGrad98]

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.

Ever seen an iceberg. I had the chance once to take a boat by a few. They looked like small little islands of ice. Some no bigger than the boat.

Of course there was far more of it unseen. But hey, as long as all we do is look at the top of it we can pretend the rest of it doesn't exist.

And it is interesting that your view of ethics is anything is fine as long as they can't prove anything. You know, I can sleep in the same bed as my sister in law with both of us naked but hey, you can't prove my dick went anywhere inappropriate so the entire situation is absolutely fine, right?

 

[The Thriller]

Ever seen an iceberg. I had the chance once to take a boat by a few. They looked like small little islands of ice. Some no bigger than the boat.

Of course there was far more of it unseen. But hey, as long as all we do is look at the top of it we can pretend the rest of it doesn't exist.

And it is interesting that your view of ethics is anything is fine as long as they can't prove anything. You know, I can sleep in the same bed as my sister in law with both of us naked but hey, you can't prove my dick went anywhere inappropriate so the entire situation is absolutely fine, right?

What’s wrong with sleeping naked in the same bed as your hot sister in law when your wife is out of town on a business trip? You mean, you haven’t done that? How do you prevent loneliness?

….

It’s also dishonest. Not a single one of these conservatives would be defending justice Brown if she were going on fishing trips with and sucking in thousands from George Soros. Fox News would be having a nuclear meltdown right now. None of these posters on this website would be so willfully blind. They’d all be calling her out (rightfully) for the corruption and blatant bribery. They’d be demanding Biden resign or be impeached for nominating someone so corrupt and lacking in judgement to the court.

Thomas and Alito have shown supreme corruption and lack of judgement. We’d all be better off if such pieces weren’t on the court. We’d all be better off if the court actually had real accountability. As it stands, the branch that judges the laws of our society is the one with the least ethics or accountability. That’s messed up

 

[Al-O-Meter]

And it is interesting that your view of ethics is anything is fine as long as they can't prove anything. You know, I can sleep in the same bed as my sister in law with both of us naked but hey, you can't prove my dick went anywhere inappropriate so the entire situation is absolutely fine, right?

Ever seen an iceberg. I had the chance once to take a boat by a few. They looked like small little islands of ice. Some no bigger than the boat.

Of course there was far more of it unseen. But hey, as long as all we do is look at the top of it we can pretend the rest of it doesn't exist.

And it is interesting that your view of ethics is anything is fine as long as they can't prove anything. You know, I can sleep in the same bed as my sister in law with both of us naked but hey, you can't prove my dick went anywhere inappropriate so the entire situation is absolutely fine, right?

It isn’t that there is a lack of proof but instead an overwhelming amount of proof of the opposite. Your opinion is akin to someone making claims the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea ride at Disneyland is a real submarine because the top looks like a submarine in photos and there is no evidence it isn’t a submarine. There are engineering documents, photos from the initial construction showing the pool being built with rails, and maintenance workers who can tell you exactly how the ride works, but all you care about is the photos of the top you’ve seen on social media.

I’m sure you can find other barking seals who will cheer for your idea of it being a secret submarine but it isn’t. Likewise, you can find other barking seals who think Alito and Thomas have taken bribes but that is equally as dumb. There is no criminal investigation because it would take about 12 seconds and the results would be embarrassing for those initiating the investigation.

The more troubling part of your willful blindness is the disregard of the obvious politicization of the court you want to impose. You want a bipartisan oversight committee like the Senate Judiciary Committee who denied Merrick Garland a confirmation vote to have the power to remove judges from the court or from cases at any time and apparently without even needing to prove anything because you want to bang your wife’s sister.

Please tell me in your infinite wisdom how that wouldn’t almost immediately result in the party in the majority gutting all justices who didn’t align with their political values. The party in majority would gain the power to impose their will even on states where the opposition party was in the majority by striking down their laws as unconstitutional. Your proposed solution, because you read some stuff on social media, is to give control of the Judicial Branch to the Legislative Branch. Genius.

 

[Red]

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse(D-RI) has been focused on the influence of right wing dark money on the SC for years. Took awhile, but people are starting to understand it’s not a good influence for our democracy….

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse — The Scheme: How the Right Wing Used Dark Money to Capture the Supreme Court - Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College

www.roosevelthouse.hunter.cuny.edu

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUZM_KnYxEM

This member of Congress wants everyone to know about the 'dark money scheme' that's 'captured' the Supreme Court | U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island

The Official U.S. Senate website of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island

www.whitehouse.senate.gov

“Unlike some members of his party, Whitehouse has steered clear of reform ideas such as adding more seats to the bench or setting term limits for justices. Instead, the three-term senator has been vehemently pushing for financial transparency in the third branch of government to expose how it's been influenced by a far-right conservative agenda.

Whitehouse, who chairs a key panel on the Senate Judiciary Committee, calls it a three-fold "scheme" — private groups use anonymous donations to groom Supreme Court candidates, promote and defend these nominees with political ad campaigns and later try to influence these justices in legal briefs filed without any financial disclosures.

"If it's the same people who paid for all of it, particularly if they're the same people who are funding politicians, then it becomes not just a problem, but potentially toxic," Whitehouse, 66, said in a recent interview with Insider.

According to the senator's findings, the effect of this operation is being played out during Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts' tenure, which has handed down at least 80 partisan decisions that advanced conservative interests

 

[Red]

Nice perks…

Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel

The fullest accounting yet shows how Thomas has secretly reaped the benefits from a network of wealthy and well-connected patrons that is far more extensive than previously understood.

www.propublica.org

“At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.

This accounting of Thomas’ travel, revealed for the first time here from an array of previously unavailable information, is the fullest to date of the generosity that has regularly afforded Thomas a lifestyle far beyond what his income could provide. And it is almost certainly an undercount.”

 

[The Thriller]

Nice perks…

Clarence Thomas’ 38 Vacations: The Other Billionaires Who Have Treated the Supreme Court Justice to Luxury Travel

The fullest accounting yet shows how Thomas has secretly reaped the benefits from a network of wealthy and well-connected patrons that is far more extensive than previously understood.

www.propublica.org

“At least 38 destination vacations, including a previously unreported voyage on a yacht around the Bahamas; 26 private jet flights, plus an additional eight by helicopter; a dozen VIP passes to professional and college sporting events, typically perched in the skybox; two stays at luxury resorts in Florida and Jamaica; and one standing invitation to an uber-exclusive golf club overlooking the Atlantic coast.

This accounting of Thomas’ travel, revealed for the first time here from an array of previously unavailable information, is the fullest to date of the generosity that has regularly afforded Thomas a lifestyle far beyond what his income could provide. And it is almost certainly an undercount.”

LOL. They just keep comin!

 

[The Thriller]

Can we be honest for a second? No one actually thinks this is okay. Cmon. This bribery is so blatant.

In early 2000, Clarence complained to a congressman about needing to step down from being a justice because his pay wasn’t sufficient for the lifestyle he wanted to live. By 2019, he was still on the court and completely changed his tune, saying that the compensation was “plenty.”

What changed?

Well, after he complained, the right wing machine feared he might step down, leaving the option open for Clinton or Gore to appoint his successor. So the floodgates of corruption opened. Suddenly, Thomas was given big time dollars to speak at private events, was extended book deals, his wife Gained a position at Heritage, Republican rich donors paid for his vacations, mortgages, and RVs, and he was given tons of perks.

This is corruption. This is bribery. No one should be okay with this. And this is a justice who is weighing in on the legality of our laws? Unreal.

A “Delicate Matter”: Clarence Thomas’ Private Complaints About Money Sparked Fears He Would Resign

Interviews and newly unearthed documents reveal that Thomas, facing financial strain, privately pushed for a higher salary and to allow Supreme Court justices to take speaking fees.

www.propublica.org