• 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?

PitPat

Better than all of you
PitPat
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
19,899
Location
Seattle
I think we all kind of grew up being instilled with the belief that the law is the LAW. And every dispute will be adjudicated fairly and without prejudice at the highest level.

SCOTUS has been fairly immune from media scrutiny and questioning (for the most part); justices rarely do interviews...but sometimes they do. Obviously they're careful with their words.

Do we accept this branch of government as non-partisan and untouchable? Because it is certainly partisan, no matter how you cut it. One can argue any position one wants, just like Congress or Executive. Not seeing a huge difference. Oh but hey, I'm a judge! I can write it better than them and make it sound authoritative, dissents included (insert judicial activism arguments here) :).

I'm starting to wonder why they're so precious, and how weakly mainstream journalism really goes after them directly. Could be that most people don't care that much about it because they believe whatever they decide doesn't affect them. Not sure.

Might sound like I'm venting, but it's a serious question.
 
Yeah I get that it's a constitutional branch of government, and that won't change. My question is more why it's treated so differently than the other two from a sociological standpoint.
 
Well, what exactly are the complaints that need addressed? Where is the media scrutiny lacking? Any specific examples?
 
Last edited:
Warp12 said:
Well, what exactly are the complaints that need addressed? Where is the media scrutiny lacking? Any specific examples?
Click to expand...

Maybe not a complaint, more of an observation.

Everything the President/Administration and Congress works on is reported and grilled on - at a very consistent and occasionally visceral level. Watch any cable news during the day and they got reporters salivating over everybody involved, so you may get something if they're important to a particular bill or something. You got a lot of WH people being hounded by reporters and 535 congressional members who, up to a point, are happy to talk about their views.

Coverage of SCOTUS only seems to happen when they make a decision that may be controversial. They are a co-equal branch, though get a free pass from the media.

I guess examples would be every hot-button issue the other two branches have to face up to every day. So abortion, guns, religious freedom, you name it. If you really want I can cite you some cases but I suspect you understand.

ETA: Point is, of course they are the upholders and ultimate deciders of the Constitution and whatever the other two hash out, but we're behaving like they're above it all. I don't think they are. Better than nothing? Yeah, maybe.
 
Last edited:
"Just because the Supreme Court says so does not make it law. We interpret the Constitution. I don’t care what nine clowns in bathrobes say."

- Michael Badnarik, Libertarian candidate for POTUS 2004, self-annointed constitutional scholar
 
Last edited:
I don't know about "exalted status" so much. At various times, the losers in Supreme Court cases have been vocal about not exalting the institution, and certainly there have been some decisions (Plessy, Dred Scott and Korematsu are the most famous) that are widely repudiated today.
 
I mean, it probably doesn't. Thomas, besides having some of the worst nonsense opinions and not being intellectually curious, has had many conflicts of interest that he didn't recuse for, has many political connections through his wife that are quite ripe for digging into, said wife was at Jan 6th, and yet this doesn't get much play in the media. If the media were the Fox News like propaganda arm for the left that 'conservatives' claimed, this would be brought up every month or two and there would be a dozen investigative reporters writing deep dives on it at any given time.

What makes the news? Him going to the hospital.
 
PitPat said:
I think we all kind of grew up being instilled with the belief that the law is the LAW. And every dispute will be adjudicated fairly and without prejudice at the highest level.

SCOTUS has been fairly immune from media scrutiny and questioning (for the most part); justices rarely do interviews...but sometimes they do. Obviously they're careful with their words.

Do we accept this branch of government as non-partisan and untouchable? Because it is certainly partisan, no matter how you cut it. One can argue any position one wants, just like Congress or Executive. Not seeing a huge difference. Oh but hey, I'm a judge! I can write it better than them and make it sound authoritative, dissents included (insert judicial activism arguments here) :).

I'm starting to wonder why they're so precious, and how weakly mainstream journalism really goes after them directly. Could be that most people don't care that much about it because they believe whatever they decide doesn't affect them. Not sure.

Might sound like I'm venting, but it's a serious question.
Click to expand...

As long as you continue to have Federal Appeals Court Judges nominated by Presidents, and confirmed by politicians, you will continue to have courts that are partisan... it comes with the territory.
 
Last edited:
Arguably it's only the liberals who still believe this nonsense like the "impartial" court. The right has correctly viewed it as a political institution for decades now, which is why they have been working hard to change the partisan composition of the courts, most notably through the work of the Federalist Society. It's not like this wasn't clearly telegraphed, it was all happening in plain sight. Libs insist there's some honor in gentlemanly combat while the right is using steel toe boots to kick them in the balls. Venerating the courts and acting like they are above the normal rat-******* of partisan politics is a loser's mindset.

tyr_13 said:
I mean, it probably doesn't. Thomas, besides having some of the worst nonsense opinions and not being intellectually curious, has had many conflicts of interest that he didn't recuse for, has many political connections through his wife that are quite ripe for digging into, said wife was at Jan 6th, and yet this doesn't get much play in the media. If the media were the Fox News like propaganda arm for the left that 'conservatives' claimed, this would be brought up every month or two and there would be a dozen investigative reporters writing deep dives on it at any given time.

What makes the news? Him going to the hospital.
Click to expand...

Indeed. There's really no reason why journalists shouldn't be rooting through the trash and combing the muck of these politicians in robes just like they would for any other politician. The same is true of lesser federal judges as well. Appointments to these positions are as much political and full of sleaze any anything else going on in the halls of power.

If the liberals had any guts at all they'd be gunning to impeach Thomas for his nakedly corrupt influence peddling through his wife. It presents an interesting approach to rebalancing the court that doesn't require a massive constitutional overhaul. While removing him would obviously be a partisan effort (which is good), the grievances that could be raised in any such impeachment are legitimate. His refusal to recuse himself from various cases in which he is closely tied are absolutely deep ethical breaches, and he has enriched himself using his wife's "consulting" services as a flimsy pretext for lobbyists to funnel cash directly into their bank accounts.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Arguably it's only the liberals who still believe this nonsense like the "impartial" court. The right has correctly viewed it as a political institution for decades now, which is why they have been working hard to change the partisan composition of the courts, most notably through the work of the Federalist Society. It's not like this wasn't clearly telegraphed, it was all happening in plain sight. Libs insist there's some honor in gentlemanly combat while the right is using steel toe boots to kick them in the balls. Venerating the courts and acting like they are above the normal rat-******* of partisan politics is a loser's mindset.
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

Although I might change "still believed" to "ever believed."

It's always been a political wing, and outside a brief era including the Warren court it's been a viciously reactionary court drawn from and beholden to the economic elite.

The Court has been the prime mover of the vast majority of evil in American political history. Dred Scott, gutting the civil war amendments, the Lochner era, etc.

Right now the big thing is jamming up laws and reforms meant to protect fair elections while also using formalistic reasoning to obliterate the idea that a right without a remedy is not a right.

I mean, the very idea that it is at all possible to "impartially" decide cases of first impression is just off the top nonsensical. Unless the justices are just flipping coins their ideas of how the constitution works are going to be what decides these cases.
 
JoeMorgue said:
*Raises hand*

What "exalted status?"
Click to expand...

It's what people think when they have just enough education to convince themselves that the Supreme Court is above politics but not enough to see that they were right in the first place.

Level one: The supreme court decides things based on political preference. Not exalted.

Level two: The supreme court decides things based on reasoned legal doctrines that are rooted in the Constitution and our nations founding values. Exalted.

Level three: Oh... those reasoned doctrines are just a complex way of stating political preference. I was right in the first place. No longer exalted.


People tend to get stuck on level two for a whole slew of reasons that come down to that it is the only way to get people to accept absurd outcomes. This is why you see so many Scalia, etc. opinions with awful outcomes where they take an apologetic tone as if they are bystanders rather than actors.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I am not sure it is influence peddling. It seems they would have their same views if there was no money in it.
Click to expand...

If they are cashing checks it doesn't matter. That said...

There is admittedly a somewhat compelling argument that Thomas is well established enough as a whackjob that anyone spending money to influence him is being a bad consumer.

It fails because Thomas does have some say behind the scenes in what cases make their way to the court and for that purpose getting his attention has a lot of value for dark money groups.
 
"Above Politics" is a meaningless term. It was a meaningless term before we became a post-fact world and it's a meaningless term squared now that we are in one.

"Facts exist" is now a mere political opinion that ~40% of American think is false and in doing so have successfully trolled the country into accepting "Being intentional wrong for no more reason or motivation than pure spite" is just another valid political opinion that can't be argued against.

I don't want any part of our government to be "above politics" in that world.
 
Last edited:
Suddenly said:
If they are cashing checks it doesn't matter. That said...

There is admittedly a somewhat compelling argument that Thomas is well established enough as a whackjob that anyone spending money to influence him is being a bad consumer.

It fails because Thomas does have some say behind the scenes in what cases make their way to the court and for that purpose getting his attention has a lot of value for dark money groups.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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