Supreme Court Corruption (Formerly Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire) (3 Viewers)

[cuddlemonkey]

It seems that a billionaire GOP donor has spent a small fortune on vacations for Ginni and Clarence Thomas.

Clarence Thomas Secretly Accepted Luxury Trips From Major GOP Donor

Island-hopping on a superyacht. Private jet rides around the world. The undisclosed gifts to Thomas have no known precedent in the modern history of the Supreme Court. “It’s incomprehensible to me that someone would do this,” says one former judge.

www.propublica.org

 

[MT15]

But therein lies the rub. Your last sentence makes the court purely a political weapon rather than a legal one. There's no doubt political influence to some degree, but expanding the court for how they rule is a terrible idea imo.

Expanding the courts to match the number of districts makes more sense than changing it because of how they rule.

If it's because of how they rule, you'd have the court changing numbers every time the WH changes hands.

No, I didn’t mean it needed to be expanded simply because of the way they are ruling. But I do look at the nominations of Gorsuch and Barrett as court-packing done by McConnell. What he did has skewed the court so that it is out of step with the rest of the country. But the number of circuits is a non-partisan reason to expand the court. The fact that they are hurting people just makes it more urgent that it needs to happen.

 

[DaveXA]

That's a really bad example because Conservative SCOTUS had to really go out of pocket and ignore basic law like standing and it's own limits over executive action to reach that decision. They had the blinders on of their self created "major doctrines principle".

I disagree. There was lot more to it than that. And I for one wanted the Court to let it stand, but honestly didn't think it would hold up. A lot of people in the know thought the same thing.

 

[UriUT]

I stand corrected. There are 12 regions, 13 appellate courts.

Court Role and Structure

The federal judiciary operates separately from the executive and legislative branches, but often works with them as the Constitution requires. Federal laws are passed by Congress and signed by the President. The judicial branch decides the constitutionality of federal laws and resolves other...

www.uscourts.gov

Courts of Appeals​

There are 13 appellate courts that sit below the U.S. Supreme Court, and they are called the U.S. Courts of Appeals. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a court of appeals. The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.

A court of appeals hears challenges to district court decisions from courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.

In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws, and cases decided by the U.S. Court of International Trade and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Learn more about the courts of appeals.

 

[DaveXA]

I think your point earlier was that each branch was independent and that other branches can't dictate towards the other (strict separation of powers). My point was that there was precedence that Congress and the Presidency have the power to restrict the Judicial. And pertinent to the current case is that they can impose ethics rules upon the SC. Besides, we have ethics rule for the rest of the judicial branch...why is the SC excluded?

As to the expansion of the SC, diluting, and therefore, reducing each individual SC justice's powers may not be a bad thing. We have two justices with very debatable corruption allegations determining the law of the land. 2/9 is much easier to corrupt and more influential then 2/13.

Any who, it would be interesting if Congress passes an expansion and the SC says no, despite precedence. We know how this court views precedence. What would happen????

Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, each branch has their own ethics rules and office. I want to say I've read somewhere that the ethics office of SCOTUS deals more with staffers but i need to look again when i have some time.

As far as ethics is concerned, I don't believe the branches write and enforce each other's ethics rules.

 

[DaveXA]

No, I didn’t mean it needed to be expanded simply because of the way they are ruling. But I do look at the nominations of Gorsuch and Barrett as court-packing done by McConnell. What he did has skewed the court so that it is out of step with the rest of the country. But the number of circuits is a non-partisan reason to expand the court. The fact that they are hurting people just makes it more urgent that it needs to happen.

Well, for what it's worth, I hated how they were chosen, but it is what it is. If the situation is flipped, the Democrats better do the same thing. Fair play and all.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I disagree. There was lot more to it than that. And I for one wanted the Court to let it stand, but honestly didn't think it would hold up. A lot of people in the know thought the same thing.

Most of the "people in the know" have pointed out how the same justices that have argued you can't read more into a law than the original text of the law contradiction themselves by reading more into the law than the actual original text of the law.

The Supreme Court has already been politicized by McConnell, The Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society. That politicization began decades ago. Not doing anything to undo that politicization would be political in itself.

We don't need to worry about rocking the boat, because the damned boat has been capsized. The boat is sinking, so we either swim to a new boat, right the current capsized boat, or we drown.

I know you're going to say something along the lines of "it's not as bad as you say," but you're very much wrong. I'm not mad at you. I know you have a good heart, but as you have said, you are conservative. That means your default is always to maintain the status quo, no matter how horrible the status quo is for a significant number of people.

It's not just about student loans, we've already seen a theocratic, racist and misogynistic driven roll backs of rights, respect and justice for women, people of color, and people who don't conform to heterosexual cisgender norms.

It's not going to end there. You may have the luxury of being able to throw your arms up in the air and surrender to the idea "there's nothing we can do about it and we shouldn't rock the boat" but a very significant number of people don't have that luxury. And that number is going to grow dramatically every year until we reform the Supreme Court.

Right now they are coming for people who aren't you, but if you just keeping throwing your arms up saying "there's nothing we can do," then they will eventually be coming for you. Oppressive authoritarians always do. They are extremely insecure which drives them to obsessively and compulsively try to control everyone and everything, which eventually and inevitably will include you.

We are under siege in this country from people who are creating, stoking and using fear to radicalize and mobilize White Christians who publicly identify themselves as Heterosexual and Cisgender against the rest of us. The Supreme Court is methodically chipping away at laws designed to minimize the damage those radicals can do to those who are not White Christian Males who identify as Heterosexual and Cisgender.

 

[UriUT]

Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, each branch has their own ethics rules and office. I want to say I've read somewhere that the ethics office of SCOTUS deals more with staffers but i need to look again when i have some time.

As far as ethics is concerned, I don't believe the branches write and enforce each other's ethics rules.

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

www.uscourts.gov

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges includes the ethical canons that apply to federal judges and provides guidance on their performance of official duties and engagement in a variety of outside activities.

The Code of Conduct for United States Judges was initially adopted by the Judicial Conference on April 5, 1973

No SCOTUS

This Code applies to United States circuit judges, district judges, Court of International Trade judges, Court of Federal Claims judges, bankruptcy judges, and magistrate judges. Certain provisions of this Code apply to special masters and commissioners as indicated in the “Compliance” section. The Tax Court, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces have adopted this Code.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think your point earlier was that each branch was independent and that other branches can't dictate towards the other (strict separation of powers). My point was that there was precedence that Congress and the Presidency have the power to restrict the Judicial. And pertinent to the current case is that they can impose ethics rules upon the SC. Besides, we have ethics rule for the rest of the judicial branch...why is the SC excluded?

As to the expansion of the SC, diluting, and therefore, reducing each individual SC justice's powers may not be a bad thing. We have two justices with very debatable corruption allegations determining the law of the land. 2/9 is much easier to corrupt and more influential then 2/13.

Any who, it would be interesting if Congress passes an expansion and the SC says no, despite precedence. We know how this court views precedence. What would happen????

Without Congressional and Presidential approved funding, their is no Supreme Court and the Supreme Court can not make Congress and the President fund them.

Congress can force the Supreme Court to accept rules of ethics or face defunding. Congress has that Constitutional Power.

Congress also has the power to remove a Supreme Court justice. This corrupt Supreme Court is engaged in a lot more power grabbing overreach than either Congress or the President. That's been the plan for over 30 years, coup by court.

 

[UriUT]

Without Congressional and Presidential approved funding, their is no Supreme Court and the Supreme Court can not make Congress and the President fund them.

Congress can force the Supreme Court to accept rules of ethics or face defunding. Congress has that Constitutional Power.

Congress also has the power to remove a Supreme Court justice. This corrupt Supreme Court is engaged in a lot more power grabbing overreach than either Congress or the President. That's been the plan for over 30 years, coup by court.

This is quite extreme, and I hope we don't get there. I remember FDR, after the SC suggests that they will rule his New Deal as unconstitutional, threatened that he would pack the court or something. That lead them to back down. I'm unsure anyone would have that political clout.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Well, for what it's worth, I hated how they were chosen, but it is what it is. If the situation is flipped, the Democrats better do the same thing. Fair play and all.

So the Democrats can only break the same rules and ethics that the Republicans have? Why can't they break the rules and ethics they want to break? You say you don't want the Supreme Court expanded for political reasons, then turn around and say the Democrats should play the same political games to stack the Supreme Court to their political liking.

It's an inconsistent line of thought.

This is quite extreme, and I hope we don't get there. I remember FDR, after the SC suggests that they will rule his New Deal as unconstitutional, threatened that he would pack the court or something. That lead them to back down. I'm unsure anyone would have that political clout.

I don't want it to happen either, but something has to be done.

I think the answer is to expand the court. 0.000003% of the population should not have the amount of control they have over the entire population. On average there are 19 judges in each districts appeals court. There is no good reason for the Supreme Court not to have at least that many judges.

I say expand to 21 and let the current and the next 2 presidents each appoint 4 new justices in addition to replace any justices that leave the court during their term. I also say that we amend the constitution to place term limits on justices in a revolving fashion to ensure that every president gets to appoint a set number of justices plus any that leave or retire from the court.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, each branch has their own ethics rules and office. I want to say I've read somewhere that the ethics office of SCOTUS deals more with staffers but i need to look again when i have some time.

As far as ethics is concerned, I don't believe the branches write and enforce each other's ethics rules.

This is not completely accurate. While each branch has ethics rules they created, Congress has passed ethics based laws that govern the Executive branch. They can do the same for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could dismiss it as unconstitutional, but that would also invalidate all of the laws that Congress has put the Executive branch under, like the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act applies to the Supreme Court justices as well as anyone else.

A justice can't violate the Espionage Act and then argue that it doesn't apply to them, because Congress can't tell them what they can and can't do. Congress can and has passed laws that dictate the behavior of people who hold public office. The Supreme Court justices are not exempt from that, nor should they be.

 

[DaveXA]

This is not completely accurate. While each branch has ethics rules they created, Congress has passed ethics based laws that govern the Executive branch. They can do the same for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could dismiss it as unconstitutional, but that would also invalidate all of the laws that Congress has put the Executive branch under, like the Presidential Records Act and the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act applies to the Supreme Court justices as well as anyone else.

A justice can't violate the Espionage Act and then argue that it doesn't apply to them, because Congress can't tell them what they can and can't do. Congress can and has passed laws that dictate the behavior of people who hold public office. The Supreme Court justices are not exempt from that, nor should they be.

I guess we'll have to see, but I'm not expecting any of that to happen at this point.

 

[DaveXA]

So the Democrats can only break the same rules and ethics that the Republicans have?

Eh, as gross as all that mess was, it wasnt breaking any laws or rules.

Why can't they break the rules and ethics they want to break? You say you don't want the Supreme Court expanded for political reasons, then turn around and say the Democrats should play the same political games to stack the Supreme Court to their political liking.

It's an inconsistent line of thought.

Maybe to you, but they aren't the same thing in my mind, so, no, it isn't inconsistent.

I don't want it to happen either, but something has to be done.

I think the answer is to expand the court. 0.000003% of the population should not have the amount of control they have over the entire population. On average there are 19 judges in each districts appeals court. There is no good reason for the Supreme Court not to have at least that many judges.

I say expand to 21 and let the current and the next 2 presidents each appoint 4 new justices in addition to replace any justices that leave the court during their term. I also say that we amend the constitution to place term limits on justices in a revolving fashion to ensure that every president gets to appoint a set number of justices plus any that leave or retire from the court.

I don't think there's an appetite for that many more justices. I doubt you'll ever see more than 15. I think 13 is probably where it will be 10 years from now. Who knows tho.

 

[zztop]

There should be a retirement age. I don't know how they would do it, but I don't want 70 year olds ruining decades for the rest of the population, and not being around for the aftermath.

 

[MT15]

There should be a retirement age. I don't know how they would do it, but I don't want 70 year olds ruining decades for the rest of the population, and not being around for the aftermath.

Maybe term limits, as someone suggested. Rotate them all so that every president gets to appoint 2 or 3, plus any unexpected vacancies.

 

[DaveXA]

Maybe term limits, as someone suggested. Rotate them all so that every president gets to appoint 2 or 3, plus any unexpected vacancies.

I'd be fine with limits. Say 10 years. Could do 9 years and rotate 1 justice every year. Or do 18 and rotate every 2 years.

 

[MT15]

This is the voice of the actual 2-tiered justice system. This is a man who feels empowered so much, that he says you cannot even know what he is doing.

 

[MT15]

They are circling the wagons. This is the real corruption that we need to be focused on. Not diverted by what Hunter Biden did 8 years ago.