• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol Thomas refused to recuse himself in a case where it looks like his own wife's text messages were involved in the subpoena request. This is maximally corrupt, like textbook stuff. If this isn't impeachable misconduct, nothing is.

The House Select Committee investigating the January 6 riot has in its possession more than two dozen text messages, 29 in total, between former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, a conservative activist and the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, according to multiple sources familiar with the messages.

...

The work of the January 6 select committee has already come before the Supreme Court. In January, the court did not stand in the way of the release of thousands of documents from the Trump White House despite the former President suing to keep them secret under executive privilege. The vote on the matter was 8-1, with only Thomas dissenting.
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/politics/ginni-thomas-mark-meadows-text-messages/index.html
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Lol Thomas refused to recuse himself in a case where it looks like his own wife's text messages were involved in the subpoena request. This is maximally corrupt, like textbook stuff. If this isn't impeachable misconduct, nothing is.



https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/24/politics/ginni-thomas-mark-meadows-text-messages/index.html
Click to expand...

Two things

1) The poster did not argue this point. They argued that the content of the posts was worthy of resignation.
That is why I asked.... because it was so different from the more common argument being made right now.

2) It isn't known corruption. Wikipedia has a good definition for political corruption

when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence he did it for personal gain. That is why the appearance of corruption is curbed.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Two things

1) The poster did not argue this point. They argued that the content of the posts was worthy of resignation.
That is why I asked.... because it was so different from the more common argument being made right now.

2) It isn't known corruption. Wikipedia has a good definition for political corruption



You have no evidence he did it for personal gain. That is why the appearance of corruption is curbed.
Click to expand...

This is my fault for responding to you.
 
smartcooky said:
I get the impression that Pelosi was, to some extent, taking the piss.
Click to expand...

It's weird then, because she's actually someone in a position of power that could raise the issue.

Nobodies like you and me joke about such things because we're powerless spectators, it's a bit odd to hear such sarcasm from someone whose literal job includes a remedy to this bad behavior.

I have no illusions that enough Republicans would cross the aisle to make an impeachment stick, but I would assert there's some value in at least making the effort as some form of official condemnation of brazen corruption.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's weird then, because she's actually someone in a position of power that could raise the issue.

Nobodies like you and me joke about such things because we're powerless spectators, it's a bit odd to hear such sarcasm from someone whose literal job includes a remedy to this bad behavior.

I have no illusions that enough Republicans would cross the aisle to make an impeachment stick, but I would assert there's some value in at least making the effort as some form of official condemnation of brazen corruption.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine she's also acutely aware that, outside Thomas blatently admitting that his wife had told him that she had texted and called Meadows, and that was the reason why he dissented in the case, it's not going to go anywhere anyway.
 
Yeah it's been awhile. But the question still stands.

A bunch of 6-3's, on ideological grounds.

But no. They are above reproach because they wear black robes and pretty immune to media attention and scrutiny. How dare you?!

Until now.

Would like to see some protests around their front door. Last thing that six of them would want, because they're above it all and don't have any preconceived biases.
 
PitPat said:
Yeah it's been awhile. But the question still stands.

A bunch of 6-3's, on ideological grounds.

But no. They are above reproach because they wear black robes and pretty immune to media attention and scrutiny. How dare you?!

Until now.

Would like to see some protests around their front door. Last thing that six of them would want, because they're above it all and don't have any preconceived biases.
Click to expand...
Not only do they have biases, they are actually proud of them. They have been parading them in public for years. What they think is they are much more evolved, superior beings who are above any reproach or hindrance and can act with impunity. And so far they have been proven right.
 
An irony from my POV is that while the likes of Justice Thomas are out there getting trips to Bali, etc., I can't at present even give my full opinion on this topic because as perhaps the least powerful and probably worst paid state level judge in America it would violate the ethical guidelines. Meanwhile on my official disclosure form I'm gonna have to disclose the what is so far $1.05 I've made in book royalties this year.

I couldn't as much as promote a charitable cause of go on Facebook and like a friend's business venture without getting a message from the committee.
 
Should there be a supreme court? Yes.

Should its rulings on appeal overturn the rulings of lower courts? Yes.

Should there be no higher authority to overrule the supreme court? Yes.

/thread
 
PitPat said:
Yeah it's been awhile. But the question still stands.

A bunch of 6-3's, on ideological grounds.

But no. They are above reproach because they wear black robes and pretty immune to media attention and scrutiny. How dare you?!

Until now.

Would like to see some protests around their front door. Last thing that six of them would want, because they're above it all and don't have any preconceived biases.
Click to expand...
Certainly explains why Kagan was the mostly likely justice to be in the majority, all those clear ideological splits.
 
www.scotusblog.com

Stat Pack 2025

Supreme Court patterns are evolving.Stat Pack analysis – 2024-25 term The SCOTUSblog Stat Pack provides a comprehensive analysis of Supreme Court trends and patterns. Through a detailed tracking of cases, […]
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com

Hopelessly partisan republican nominees at it again. Voting in a block 9% of the time.
 
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...
It should hold the same status as any other kangaroo court over-populated with hanging judges.
 
Bringing this thread back alive because I think it's still important.

SCOTUS still kind of gets a free pass media-wise.

Is there much of a difference any more between electing or by extension appointing a justice?
 
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