• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Does SCOTUS deserve its exalted status?

BobTheCoward said:
Or it doesn't. Is there evidence money has influenced his judgement? I understand banning the appearance of corruption is valuable because it is hard to prove corruption, but that also means proving actual corruption is hard.
Click to expand...

That's why it doesn't matter. If you take the money, you are corrupt. What in your heart of hearts might have done even without the money is hypothetical.

We've made corruption effectively legal more or less for the reasons you suggest, so it isn't so much a matter of law as it is personal judgement.
 
No, the US Constitution has proven itself to be a highly flawed text. The Republic is getting ungovernable and the SC is speeding the process on its part.
 
Since SCOTUS justices are not elected and therefore do not run election campaigns, the public is less interested in them and the news media feels less obligation to cover them. And the justices (for the most part) make a deliberate effort to avoid revealing too much about their personal opinions on political and social issues, so they don't provide a lot of attention-grabbing quotes for the media to publish. Then there's the fact that their opinions on the cases they hear are often based on complex legal reasoning that's difficult for the average person to understand. So there are a number of reasons why the news media has limited motivation to pay a lot of attention to them.

Does SCOTUS deserve it's exalted status? Not entirely. Simply because the justices are among the most highly educated people in the USA does not guarantee that they are reasonable or that they are able to set their personal opinions and prejudices aside.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Does SCOTUS deserve it's exalted status? Not entirely. Simply because the justices are among the most highly educated people in the USA does not guarantee that they are reasonable or that they are able to set their personal opinions and prejudices aside.
Click to expand...

I think this is missing the point. It's not that these people occasionally err in their interpretations and come to bad results, it's that there's no such thing as a correct interpretation. Being a SCOTUS judge is as much, if not more so, ideological than it is academic.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think this is missing the point. It's not that these people occasionally err in their interpretations and come to bad results, it's that there's no such thing as a correct interpretation. Being a SCOTUS judge is as much, if not more so, ideological than it is academic.
Click to expand...

Why don't you think there is a correct interpretation?
 
The U.S. Supreme Court is brazenly political. The myth of its impartiality is one they perpetuate themselves, and one that certain media coverage will echo. But when you listen to actual lawyers (not law professors or law media) discuss the court's decisions -- especially obviously politically motivated ones like Bush v. Gore -- and you track the unmistakable rightward skew of the Court's politics from the Warren era to the Thomas era, it is very difficult to believe in the alleged impartiality and exaltation of the Court.

No, there's nothing lofty in its jurisprudence. There's nothing noble or poetic in the language of the opinions it renders. Many of the majority decisions are badly reasoned, badly written, and obviously intended to further the conservative agenda. If you appreciate legal writing, much more eloquently written and aptly argued decisions can be found at the appellate levels.

The Court has been political since Marbury v. Madison, and there's no reason for us to suppose differently.
 
It's always been politically partisan, but it was partisan in the old way along the Conservative/Liberal lines back when that was meaningfully distinct from Republican/Democrat. Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats used to a thing you can say it it would make sense.

And also before the entire right side of the political spectrum took a hard turn into "I'm a troll running on pure spite who's going to literally choose to be factually wrong about everything because I know it tweaks the Libs."
 
JoeMorgue said:
It's always been politically partisan, but it was partisan in the old way along the Conservative/Liberal lines back when that was meaningfully distinct from Republican/Democrat. Liberal Republicans and Conservative Democrats used to a thing you can say it it would make sense.

And also before the entire right side of the political spectrum took a hard turn into "I'm a troll running on pure spite who's going to literally choose to be factually wrong about everything because I know it tweaks the Libs."
Click to expand...

But the awfulness of modern republicans at least is close to the awfulness of the signatories of the constitution.

What is a more factually wrong position than black people are not human?
 
A lot of good points there.

SC justices never get their feet held up to the fire. They don't face hard questioning, like "Hey, in this dissent you made reference to something that's a little wobbly from a critical reasoning view.

We've made our decision and that's what is. But really, seriously, we're not a political body.

I'm fine with nominees or current saying what their personal opinions are. No reason we shouldn't know that, though kinda understand that it's an appearance thing that you don't want pre-judge anything that may come up. "Just depends on what the facts are, and I can set my personal opinion aside." Why not? Not like it's generally a big secret based on ruling history.
 
It is also possible you over rate variations between decisions as political when it is a factor of having to assemble coalitions of 5 votes for a position.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It is also possible you over rate variations between decisions as political when it is a factor of having to assemble coalitions of 5 votes for a position.
Click to expand...

Actually Roberts has been a bit more moderate than I initially expected and he's good at wrangling non-splits to some degree, I'll give you that. Job #1, project confidence in the system with unity wherever you can.

Come June, we'll find out more about how many split decisions are doled out and have a better sense of how in flux this new court is (and there's been a LOT just over the last 6 or so years). I'm guessing on the biggies, there will be a lot of 6-3's. We shall see.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Why should he resign?
Click to expand...

For starters, regardless of content, it is a clear ethics violation to have that level of political interchange between a SC Judge and the White House, and yes, that extends to a spouse.

But the content makes it clear that Gini Thomas is full in the Big Lie and pushes Meadows to do more after all that he could do legally had already been done. This was a clear signal to Meadows that the SC majority was on Trump's side.

But I guess that in the best Bob Tradition, if there isn't an exact case like this which let to a conviction, there is nothing wrong with it as far as you are concerned.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I have no say in what my wife chooses to do, say, or believe.
Click to expand...

Depending on what your wife says and believes that limits your options for a Job - one involving security clearances for example.
In the interest of preserving the integrity of the SC, you can't have a sitting judge's wife says and believe and do what Gini Thomas did.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Depending on what your wife says and believes that limits your options for a Job - one involving security clearances for example.
In the interest of preserving the integrity of the SC, you can't have a sitting judge's wife says and believe and do what Gini Thomas did.
Click to expand...

Why? Believing the opposite position as Gini is just as political a position.

Why is he accountable for the actions and beliefs of another person? Where is the conflict?

(ETA: she has some financial conflicts of interest that are his financial conflicts of interest, but we are not discussing those)
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Why? Believing the opposite position as Gini is just as political a position.

Why is he accountable for the actions and beliefs of another person? Where is the conflict?

(ETA: she has some financial conflicts of interest that are his financial conflicts of interest, but we are not discussing those)
Click to expand...

the SC is not supposed to be political. That's the entire reason for the lifetime appointment.
And why the heck would we not talk about financial conflicts of interest?
If those were disqualifying in any judge, why not doubly so for the highest court in the land?
Standards should become higher, not lower, with increasing power and responsibility.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
the SC is not supposed to be political. That's the entire reason for the lifetime appointment.
And why the heck would we not talk about financial conflicts of interest?
If those were disqualifying in any judge, why not doubly so for the highest court in the land?
Standards should become higher, not lower, with increasing power and responsibility.
Click to expand...

Because You didn't bring up financial conflicts of interest. You were talking about the content of text messages.

Gini isn't on the supreme court, therefore her politics doesn't make the court political.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom