|
Cimber posted:I wonder how much arm twisting Roberts had to do to get them to issue this stay. The fact that they had to extend this by two days is not great. That tells me there was a lot of conversation behind closed doors that really should not have need. It was a pretty open and closed case of standing. He's probably spending every waking second begging them to not uphold the Texas dipshit's ruling because he knows overturning Roe helped take 2022 from "Dems are polling so bad their losses could be catastrophic" to "Dems barely lost the House and gained a Senate seat (until Sinema Sinema'd)" and issuing a ruling that fully exposes the "let the states decide" lie and that yes, the GOP is coming for a nationwide abortion ban (among other things). FlamingLiberal posted:In a sane world the case would have been thrown out on standing, but we can't allow that In a sane world people like Kacsmaryk wouldn't be judges, they'd be janitors (if that). Everyone knows that cases are shopped to him explicitly to ensure a favorable ruling at every step of the process and he's the best example of why the judiciary is long overdue for a reckoning. Though that'd require Democratic leadership that actually wants to confront the GOP's decades of rigging the system. Jaxyon posted:Seems like we should increase the court to 13, so as to be sure we're not overworking our poor justices. The country's several times more populous than it was the last time the judiciary was expanded. It needs to be grown at every level and in addition to adding a lot of supreme court justices there's a need for hundreds if not thousands of judges at the other levels beyond any existing vacancies. If the GOP had actually lost their majority on the SCOTUS when Scalia died you'd have seen them add seats to it as one of their first acts after Trump got elected and they had both chambers of Congress. Dem leadership, on the other hand...
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 23:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:In a sane world people like Kacsmaryk wouldn't be judges, they'd be janitors (if that). I feel kind of stupid and nitpicky saying this, but I need to anyways. I work with many custodians when I'm contracting and the vast majority of them are really decent people and responsible for basically running a building, not just emptying trash cans. If this Kacsmaryk guy is a real piece of poo poo he should be something like a tobacco marketing executive, not a janitor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2023 23:47
|
|
|
pencilhands posted:I feel kind of stupid and nitpicky saying this, but I need to anyways. I work with many custodians when I'm contracting and the vast majority of them are really decent people and responsible for basically running a building, not just emptying trash cans. If this Kacsmaryk guy is a real piece of poo poo he should be something like a tobacco marketing executive, not a janitor. decrying "low" labor as requiring no skill and deserving no merit is the most american of traditions. Kacsmaryk has earned the latter through whatever twisted machinations our society deigns, and nobody should dare deny they do not deserve it through lack, and entire disregard of the former.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 05:09
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:That's such an incredible overreach that I don't think that even Joe Biden would accept that Are you kidding, just think of the fundraising emails he could send...
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2023 05:59
|
|
|
This seems shockingly good. Is it just me? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-oil-companies-appeals-climate-change-disputes-rcna49823
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 11:27
|
|
|
As I suspected, now that journalists are digging into SCOTUS judges’ finances they are finding other irregularities https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1650829176616767496?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA Hopefully someone can get the story about Judge Beer’s mysterious Washington Nationals season ticket debt going away
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 13:11
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:As I suspected, now that journalists are digging into SCOTUS judges’ finances they are finding other irregularities From that thread:  Very funny that I have stricter rules regarding conflicts of interest as a corporate drone than a SCOTUS judge
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 13:23
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:As I suspected, now that journalists are digging into SCOTUS judges’ finances they are finding other irregularities
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 14:05
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:As I suspected, now that journalists are digging into SCOTUS judges’ finances they are finding other irregularities So what's the scandal? That the bribe was structured as a land sale instead of a painting sale or a gift to his Foundation?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 14:11
|
|
|
Are you suggesting that bribes to Supreme Court Justices are so common that they are no longer scandalous? At least with respect to the general public or what is reported in the MSM, I think that position is untenable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 14:23
|
|
|
He's pointing out that bribes *are* so common that they are no longer scandalous, as long as it's buying a son's painting for half a million or giving a multi million dollar contract to a brother's company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 14:32
|
|
|
Again, the additional coverage and scandals arise in part due to the recent implementation of new disclosure requirements for SCOTUS justices, which were themselves put in place due to past questions about, e.g., Thomas's financial activities.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 14:51
|
|
|
I'm well aware of the degree of legitimate bribery that goes on and this still seems obviously scandalous to me, in large part because of how shocked all my family and friends are that the financial disclosure requirements for supreme court justices have been so low for so long. The tenor of reporting on Thomas's finances and these follow-ups obviously suggests that even many media figures view this as surprising and, therefore, scandalous. That we, personally, are both informed and cynical is somewhat irrelevant
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:He's pointing out that bribes *are* so common that they are no longer scandalous, as long as it's buying a son's painting for half a million or giving a multi million dollar contract to a brother's company. And also that each team plays dumb when it's their guy, but magically gain the ability to recognize bribes for what they are when the other team does it. "oh so it's illegal to have friends now" is a patently absurd defense, but bring up Hunter Biden selling paintings for half a million each and you get pretty much the same defense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:And also that each team plays dumb when it's their guy, but magically gain the ability to recognize bribes for what they are when the other team does it. Hunter Biden is not in the government, so not as big of a deal compared to the judges taking bribes personally, but yes that is also not great Piell fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Apr 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:15
|
|
|
Piell posted:Hunter Biden is not in the government, so not as big of a deal compared to the judges taking bribes personally, but yes that is also not great Clarence Thomas' mom is not in the government so not a big deal that she's getting some of the money then right? Hence my question about what he scandal is here: the bribe was paid to Neil Gorsuch directly instead of to his kid or brother or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Clarence Thomas' mom is not in the government so not a big deal that she's getting some of the money then right? Giving the bribe directly to the supreme court justice deciding a cases where you have an interest is different than the son of a president selling overpriced art where no specific allegation of conflicts of interest have been made (as far as I can see in that article). If Hunter took bribes or broke any laws he should be punished appropriately. Why are you trying to set up some sort of gotcha where none exists?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Clarence Thomas' mom is not in the government so not a big deal that she's getting some of the money then right? Tell me you’re arguing in bad faith without actually saying you’re arguing in bad faith. You know that Clarence directly financially benefitted from the sale of the house, right? Because he was co-owner of the property. Or did you not read any of the reporting and just sea lioned in here about Hunter Bidens [insert ratfuckery here].
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Clarence Thomas' mom is not in the government so not a big deal that she's getting some of the money then right? Hunter Biden also has no stake in appearing impartial, which the court absolutely does. It's legitimacy hinges on its perception of impartiality and fair dealing . Both sidesing this seems particularly intellectually dishonest in the aftermath of President deals. Of course there is corruption on both sides of the isle but one side wants to make it more difficult and the other side wants to make it easier and entirely legal. The notion that the only difference between the two is political positioning is nonsense Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Apr 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:41
|
|
|
Qtotonibudinibudet posted:decrying "low" labor as requiring no skill and deserving no merit is the most american of traditions. Kacsmaryk has earned the latter through whatever twisted machinations our society deigns, and nobody should dare deny they do not deserve it through lack, and entire disregard of the former. My point was he should be in a job that doesn't have far reach and power over the lives of others and I used janitor as an example because a janitor's influence is slightly less than a judge who knowingly acts as a rubber stamp for his party and ideology. VitalSigns posted:Clarence Thomas' mom is not in the government so not a big deal that she's getting some of the money then right? Ignoring for a moment that Clarence owned the house in question, no it's not as big a deal though it's still a problem. As for Hunter Biden, nobody thinks he should walk if he's taking bribes and there's a difference between Hunter's alleged grift/claims he was trading on his dad's influence (regardless of whether or not Joe ever helped him) and say, Jared or Ivanka's actions while working in the government and on matters directly involving the people and countries throwing money at them. Or Trump funneling contracts to his own businesses, fleecing the secret service, judge Beer having a lot of his debt magically vanish, Thomas not recusing himself from cases involving entities that pay his wife for lobbying, etc. Or when Boehner walked around the House floor handing out "donation checks" from the tobacco industry to Republicans whose votes they wanted/needed on upcoming legislation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:42
|
|
|
JUST MAKING CHILI posted:Tell me you’re arguing in bad faith without actually saying you’re arguing in bad faith. So is the scandal that Thomas got part of the bribe money from the purchase of his mom's house? If she'd gotten it all it would it be okay? Because we need to write laws to address this kind of thing, and I'm not sure "just make sure it's your family nominally getting the bribes, not you personally" is going to do what we'd want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So is the scandal that Thomas got part of the bribe money from the purchase of his mom's house? If she'd gotten it all it would it be okay? Ah yes, the tried and true "all or nothing" approach that has always been so successful in American politics. Edit: we are literally observing the fruit of incrementalism in this renewed interest in the courts finances. Let's see what the journalists manage before we decide that things aren't getting us where we want to go Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Apr 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So is the scandal that Thomas got part of the bribe money from the purchase of his mom's house? If she'd gotten it all it would it be okay? I think part of the scandal is that he's a Supreme Court Judge who is supposed to embody the ideal of unbiased and impartial judgement. The judiciary, in general, is explicitly tasked with avoiding "even the appearance of impropriety", something politicians are not, and while in practice we know that's not what happens it does make mean that the general expectation for standards of behaviour is much higher. Trump did way worse stuff than Biden in this regards and people still mostly ignored everything except the most egregious and overt bribes involved direct conflicts of interest, and even those gained no real traction.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Ah yes, the tried and true "all or nothing" approach that has always been so successful in American politics. Sure from a practical standpoint you get as much as you can and return to fight another day. If we could only address this specific corruption right now and nothing else, sure do it. But my point (which like six people immediately jumped in to prove) was that a lot of the people mad about this make equally absurd excuses for corruption and play dumb about bribery when it's their own team, and I don't think that helps anything. Demanding proof that people paying $500,000 for a genuine Hunter Biden were really buying influence with the administration is as absurd as the conservatives insisting that buying Clarence Thomas lavish vacations isn't buying influence and demanding proof that it affected a specific case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 15:55
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I think part of the scandal is that he's a Supreme Court Judge who is supposed to embody the ideal of unbiased and impartial judgement. The judiciary, in general, is explicitly tasked with avoiding "even the appearance of impropriety", something politicians are not, and while in practice we know that's not what happens it does make mean that the general expectation for standards of behaviour is much higher. pork never goes bad posted:I'm well aware of the degree of legitimate bribery that goes on and this still seems obviously scandalous to me, in large part because of how shocked all my family and friends are that the financial disclosure requirements for supreme court justices have been so low for so long. The tenor of reporting on Thomas's finances and these follow-ups obviously suggests that even many media figures view this as surprising and, therefore, scandalous. That we, personally, are both informed and cynical is somewhat irrelevant Yeah I'm only talking amongst us cynical politics dorks. I get why the reporting on this is important because a lot of people regard the courts with a respect and awe that I think is ahhhhh less-than-deserved. Burning down the court's reputation in the public's eyes is a great thing and I hope the media never stops.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Trump did way worse stuff than Biden in this regards and people still mostly ignored everything except the most egregious and overt bribes involved direct conflicts of interest, and even those gained no real traction. From what we've seen publically, Trump wasn't even the biggest grifter in his admin during his time in office, Jared Kushner was and while Hunter Biden probably deserves to be in prison, Kushner belongs in a windowless cell for a few decades at the least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
Sure I'd welcome some stricter anti-corruption legislation in this country, but that's not near the top of my wishlist, and I think a little corruption is tolerable if we start doing other things right Edit: to be clear a 'tolerable' amount of corruption is significantly less than our political system displays today. Grip it and rip it fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Apr 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Grip it and rip it posted:Sure I'd welcome some stricter anti-corruption legislation in this country, but that's not near the top of my wishlist, and I think a little corruption is tolerable if we start doing other things right Imo these two are related, most of the wishlist will never happen as long as bribery is effectively legal, because except for a few bits of it (gay rights etc), practically every item on the list has huge pools of money opposing it and they can buy all the judges or legislators they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1651001749765775360?t=T8EbHDI1nPvEtbyvLOtiLA&s=19
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 01:31
|
|
|
Father Wendigo posted:https://twitter.com/JustinElliott/status/1651001749765775360?t=T8EbHDI1nPvEtbyvLOtiLA&s=19 No surprise there. He doesn't want to face a grilling and be forced to publicly defend Thomas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 02:21
|
|
|
Is the attached ethics statement available?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 02:23
|
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:Is the attached ethics statement available? quote:We, the supreme court of the United States, being nominated by president and confirmed by the senate, and holding lifetime appointments, do solemnly declare that our ethics are as follows:
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 02:29
|
|
|
Making a big show about how rare it is for a chief justice to testify, but he doesn't say anything about it being usual to decline to testify.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 02:41
|
|
pork never goes bad posted:Is the attached ethics statement available? Click the link in the tweet. Scroll down.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
IANAL but Roberts' argument isn't that much of a pants-on-head. He's right about the fact that "why?". He doesn't answer to the congress, so being summoned by them is weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 03:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Click the link in the tweet. Scroll down. Thank you - I clicked the link but, erm, didn't look left.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 03:53
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:IANAL but Roberts' argument isn't that much of a pants-on-head. He's right about the fact that "why?". He doesn't answer to the congress, so being summoned by them is weird. Congress can pass laws that determine how the courts operate and what rules they follow. IMO that’s not the sort of thing you just shrug and say do your worst too or they may and you probably won’t like it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
[dark souls screenshot with dark souls font “Thanks Diane.”]
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 04:28
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Congress Fixed it for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:IANAL but Roberts' argument isn't that much of a pants-on-head. He's right about the fact that "why?". He doesn't answer to the congress, so being summoned by them is weird. Any citizen can be summoned by congress I assume. He's just making it clear he's above that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2023 07:32
|
|