Ethics in Supreme Court Jurisprudence
May 5, 2023 7:11 PM Subscribe
The real reason for the Supreme Court's corruption crisis - "Roberts's 2011 report and the Court's more recent statement on ethics portray the Supreme Court as a unique institution that cannot be constrained by the same ethical rules that apply to less powerful judges, especially when it comes to recusals." (previously)
[W]hile lower federal judges must comply with a lengthy Code of Conduct for United States Judges, the nine most powerful judges in the country are famously not bound by this code of conduct — although Chief Justice John Roberts has claimed that he and his colleagues “consult the Code of Conduct in assessing their ethical obligations.”also btw...
The result is that the nine most powerful officials in the United States of America — men and women with the power to repeal or rewrite any law, who serve for life, and who will never have to stand for election and justify their actions before the voters — may also be the least constrained officials in the federal government.
[...]
Indeed, in his 2011 report, Roberts strongly implied that any attempt by Congress to ethically constrain the justices would be unconstitutional. The fact that the Code of Conduct applies exclusively to lower court judges, Roberts claimed, “reflects a fundamental difference between the Supreme Court and the other federal courts.”
The Constitution gives Congress the power to create lower federal courts, Roberts argued, and that empowers Congress to help oversee them. The Supreme Court, by contrast, is created by the Constitution itself, and that suggests that Congress has less power to constrain the justices.
Though Roberts wrote that the justices do voluntarily comply with some rules that apply to lower court judges, such as a federal law imposing “financial reporting requirements” on all federal judges, he rather ominously warned that the Supreme Court “has never addressed whether Congress may impose those requirements on the Supreme Court” — leaving the clear impression that his Court might start striking down ethical statutes if Congress insisted that the justices must comply with them.
- The Polite Disdain of John Roberts Finds a Target - "It is with real chutzpah, in other words, that Roberts has claimed judicial independence in order to circumvent an investigation into judicial independence. [O]ur Supreme Court does not exist in the constitutional order as much as it looms over it, a robed tribunal of self-styled philosopher-kings, accountable to no one but themselves."[1]
- King Roberts - "In reality, it's just a monarchy tricked out as the least dangerous branch, with black robes instead of bejeweled crowns. Indeed, the implicit argument that justices are somehow entitled to live like kings is part of the current ethics problem."[2]
- Senate panel explores ethics standards for US Supreme Court as questions swirl - "The highest court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards."
- Leading conservative former judge warns Supreme Court it must adopt the 'highest' standard of ethics rules - "In a carefully worded, but blunt statement, conservative former federal judge J. Michael Luttig sent a warning shot to the Supreme Court, calling on the Court to enact a code of conduct that would 'subject itself to the highest professional and ethical standards that would render the Court beyond reproach.' If the Supreme Court does not take such action, he cautioned, Congress has 'the power under the Constitution' to prescribe ethical standards of conduct for the court."
- Why doesn't the Supreme Court have a formal code of ethics? - "A ProPublica story about Justice Clarence Thomas accepting gifts from a billionaire has renewed calls for the court to adopt a formal ethics code."
- Yachts, $10m payouts and secret hunting trips: The Supreme Court's long history of ethics scandals - "In January, less than half of respondents to a poll approved of the job the high court was doing."
- Jane Roberts, who is married to Chief Justice John Roberts, made $10.3 million in commissions from elite law firms, whistleblower documents show - "The monetary value of a senior government official will depend on the value they bring to a law firm's client base."[3,4,5]
- Judicial activist directed fees to Clarence Thomas's wife, urged 'no mention of Ginni' - "The arrangement reveals that Leo, a longtime Federalist Society leader and friend of the Thomases, has functioned not only as an ideological ally of Clarence Thomas's but also has worked to provide financial remuneration to his family. And it shows Leo arranging for the money to be drawn from a nonprofit that soon would have an interest before the court."
- Heather Cox Richardson: "[R]ight-wing judicial activist Leonard Leo, who as a leader of the Federalist Society that backs originalist judges has been key to transforming the federal judiciary, a decade ago arranged for payments of tens of thousands of dollars to Thomas's wife Ginni. Leo and Thomas are close friends."
- Clarence Thomas's ethics are not the Supreme Court's only problem - "Huetteman was writing about these exact same issues with Thomas in 2011.[6] She was offering them as examples of the 'growing scrutiny' the court's ethical conduct was generating. And, quite obviously, nothing was done to ameliorate those concerns."
- New documents show how Sandra Day O'Connor helped George W. Bush win the 2000 election - "And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day."
- Supreme Court on ethics issues: Not broken, no fix needed - "The justices' response on Tuesday struck some critics and ethics experts as tone deaf at a time of heightened attention on the justices' travel and private business transactions. That comes against the backdrop of a historic dip in public approval as measured by opinion polls."
- Justices' quiet response to ethics crisis reveals a lesson in PR management - "There's risk in the high court staying tight-lipped as controversies unfold, some crisis management experts say."
- What Democrats Can Learn From Reporting on Supreme Court Corruption - "[It] has de facto legalized political corruption. In Citizens United, it struck down most rules on campaign financing; it overturned the bribery conviction of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell; and it struck down a law prohibiting political candidates from repaying personal loans to their campaign with post-election donations, meaning that interested parties can effectively place bribes directly into the pockets of our elected representatives."[7]
- @interfluidity: "The Roberts Court is a cesspool of open corruption that works to legalize the same."
Republicans are perpetually pissed off they didn’t get to do it to us earlier with Bork.
posted by Artw at 8:09 PM on May 5, 2023 [25 favorites]
posted by Artw at 8:09 PM on May 5, 2023 [25 favorites]
What a ridiculous load of BS.
They have no legitimacy, and no shame about their illegitimate actions.
This is fine
posted by Windopaene at 8:13 PM on May 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
They have no legitimacy, and no shame about their illegitimate actions.
This is fine
posted by Windopaene at 8:13 PM on May 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
Scalia argued that it would be “utterly disabling” to require justices to recuse from cases involving “the official actions of friends” within the federal government, because justices tend to be well-connected individuals with lots of friends in high political office. “Many Justices have reached this Court precisely because they were friends of the incumbent President or other senior officials,” Scalia wrote,
What a bunch of scumbags.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:14 PM on May 5, 2023 [42 favorites]
What a bunch of scumbags.
posted by splitpeasoup at 8:14 PM on May 5, 2023 [42 favorites]
Supreme Court: ‘We Wear Gold Crowns Now’
posted by logicpunk at 8:16 PM on May 5, 2023 [14 favorites]
posted by logicpunk at 8:16 PM on May 5, 2023 [14 favorites]
"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"
Convince Biden to enforce article 3: pro-rogue the justices until Congress weighs in (and it better be a veto proof affirmation of good behavior).
posted by Slackermagee at 9:10 PM on May 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
Convince Biden to enforce article 3: pro-rogue the justices until Congress weighs in (and it better be a veto proof affirmation of good behavior).
posted by Slackermagee at 9:10 PM on May 5, 2023 [6 favorites]
Per the above comment, this is not a SCOTUS problem but a GOP problem.
They're corrupting everything they touch, as they have since the early days of Lincoln.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:15 PM on May 5, 2023 [8 favorites]
They're corrupting everything they touch, as they have since the early days of Lincoln.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 9:15 PM on May 5, 2023 [8 favorites]
as they have since the early days of Lincoln.
Wait what?
posted by Carillon at 9:21 PM on May 5, 2023 [14 favorites]
Wait what?
posted by Carillon at 9:21 PM on May 5, 2023 [14 favorites]
Suspension of habeas corpus, even in time of Civil War, is questionable. Still, I think that Lincoln did his best to follow the Constitution.
posted by SPrintF at 9:36 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by SPrintF at 9:36 PM on May 5, 2023 [1 favorite]
Opinion: Here's Why It Would Be A Mistake For The Democrats To Do Anything That Inconveniences Asshole Supreme Court Justices - By Some Asshole Supreme Court Justice
posted by AlSweigart at 10:55 PM on May 5, 2023 [24 favorites]
posted by AlSweigart at 10:55 PM on May 5, 2023 [24 favorites]
Lack of Ethics in Supreme Court Jurisprudence
posted by nofundy at 4:11 AM on May 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by nofundy at 4:11 AM on May 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
A lot of the status quo is just because it’s been done this way or because the judges say it’s so. Now is the perfect time to shake things up, from a legitimacy standpoint. There’s McConnell denying Garland, Kavanaugh’s character, Thomas’s dirty laundry coming out and some unpopular decisions. Whatever might be accomplished with the Presidency and a slim Senate majority should be done, now. The SC was a possible bulkhead against conservatism at one point, but now it is the opposite, and we already know that rules and decorum mean nothing to Republicans, so they will continue to do whatever they can to control the court, which is easier since there are no elections.
posted by snofoam at 4:24 AM on May 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 4:24 AM on May 6, 2023 [5 favorites]
> Scalia argued that it would be “utterly disabling” to require justices to recuse from cases involving “the official actions of friends” within the federal government, because justices tend to be well-connected individuals with lots of friends in high political office. “Many Justices have reached this Court precisely because they were friends of the incumbent President or other senior officials,” Scalia wrote,
Him saying that not only out loud but during official court duties is like the judge version of this Simpsons joke. You couldn't ask for a more perfect encapsulation of how systems of power perpetuate themselves.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:30 AM on May 6, 2023 [14 favorites]
Him saying that not only out loud but during official court duties is like the judge version of this Simpsons joke. You couldn't ask for a more perfect encapsulation of how systems of power perpetuate themselves.
posted by The Card Cheat at 4:30 AM on May 6, 2023 [14 favorites]
A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody. -- Thomas Paine
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 4:47 AM on May 6, 2023 [23 favorites]
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 4:47 AM on May 6, 2023 [23 favorites]
Per the above comment, this is not a SCOTUS problem but a GOP problem.
They're corrupting everything they touch, as they have since the early days of Lincoln.
corruption keeps us safe...it's why we win
Both sides have been doing this for a long time. Sure there are differences, I'd say mostly along affinity for human rights on the left's progressive camp. But corruption is an equal bed-fellow. This is a #bothsides I'll defend. The system is rotten very close to its roots.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:17 AM on May 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
They're corrupting everything they touch, as they have since the early days of Lincoln.
corruption keeps us safe...it's why we win
Both sides have been doing this for a long time. Sure there are differences, I'd say mostly along affinity for human rights on the left's progressive camp. But corruption is an equal bed-fellow. This is a #bothsides I'll defend. The system is rotten very close to its roots.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:17 AM on May 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
I’m confused about why everybody keeps talking about Codes of Conduct. Those sound a lot like gentleman’s agreements to a non-lawyer like myself.
The thing we need is law.
And I suppose somebody to enforce it.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 5:18 AM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
The thing we need is law.
And I suppose somebody to enforce it.
posted by The Monster at the End of this Thread at 5:18 AM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Power without oversight is corrupt. Not milquetoast notions that "power corrupts" but the idea that if accountability and responsibility aren't explicit they're absent from power.
Don't accept people who tell you they are above explaining themselves. There's no justice if people aren't justifying themselves.
posted by k3ninho at 6:03 AM on May 6, 2023 [18 favorites]
Don't accept people who tell you they are above explaining themselves. There's no justice if people aren't justifying themselves.
posted by k3ninho at 6:03 AM on May 6, 2023 [18 favorites]
> Scalia argued that it would be “utterly disabling” to require justices to recuse from cases involving “the official actions of friends” within the federal government, because justices tend to be well-connected individuals with lots of friends in high political office. “Many Justices have reached this Court precisely because they were friends of the incumbent President or other senior officials,” Scalia wrote
It was funnier the way Carlin told it.
posted by flabdablet at 6:15 AM on May 6, 2023 [7 favorites]
It was funnier the way Carlin told it.
posted by flabdablet at 6:15 AM on May 6, 2023 [7 favorites]
Both sides have been doing this for a long time.Doing what, exactly? If you're saying that law cannot be completely impartial, and even judges bring their personal values to the bench, try though they might to stay objective, then fine.
But we are talking about multiple billionaires financing a life of luxury for their preferred justices, after spending lavishly to have them seated, and explicitly trying to keep it secret. This is not a both sides thing. This is a deliberate attack on democracy by a specific group of people.
posted by dbx at 6:18 AM on May 6, 2023 [32 favorites]
This is a deliberate attack on democracy by a specific group of people.
To be completely specific, by the Federalist Society.
How legal conservatives have captured the US Supreme Court (Rear Vision, ABC Radio National, 30m)
posted by flabdablet at 6:30 AM on May 6, 2023 [11 favorites]
To be completely specific, by the Federalist Society.
How legal conservatives have captured the US Supreme Court (Rear Vision, ABC Radio National, 30m)
posted by flabdablet at 6:30 AM on May 6, 2023 [11 favorites]
The courts must be entirely reconstituted, from the Supreme Court down to podunk county traffic courts.
posted by ob1quixote at 6:49 AM on May 6, 2023
posted by ob1quixote at 6:49 AM on May 6, 2023
That's exactly the insight that motivated the formation of the Federalist Society in the first place.
posted by flabdablet at 7:01 AM on May 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 7:01 AM on May 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
Yeah I’m not really seeing a “both siding” of attempting to destroy democracy by appointing hyper corrupt partisan Supreme Court justices and turning the court into a permanent unelected conservative legislative branch. That is purely a Republican project.
posted by Artw at 7:12 AM on May 6, 2023 [17 favorites]
posted by Artw at 7:12 AM on May 6, 2023 [17 favorites]
> The courts must be entirely reconstituted, from the Supreme Court down to podunk county traffic courts.
everyone in favor of revolutionary tribunals raise your hand
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:38 AM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
everyone in favor of revolutionary tribunals raise your hand
posted by bombastic lowercase pronouncements at 7:38 AM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
I feel Chris Hayes has explained this pretty well and simply.
He makes the point that the Federalist Society, just like many (most?) other Republicans, believe the other side must be doing the same, otherwise nothing makes sense.
To say both sides do this plays right into their world view, and it is just not true. That doesn't mean that Democrats can't be corrupt. Corruption is everywhere. But what is happening with the Supreme Court is so beyond the pale, I can't think of anything similar in any Western democracies since the 1960s. (I'm not counting Hungary or Poland, because they are parallel phenomena, and there is probably some mutual inspiration).
posted by mumimor at 8:05 AM on May 6, 2023 [19 favorites]
He makes the point that the Federalist Society, just like many (most?) other Republicans, believe the other side must be doing the same, otherwise nothing makes sense.
To say both sides do this plays right into their world view, and it is just not true. That doesn't mean that Democrats can't be corrupt. Corruption is everywhere. But what is happening with the Supreme Court is so beyond the pale, I can't think of anything similar in any Western democracies since the 1960s. (I'm not counting Hungary or Poland, because they are parallel phenomena, and there is probably some mutual inspiration).
posted by mumimor at 8:05 AM on May 6, 2023 [19 favorites]
There is an argument going around that the Democrat supreme court justices have a) more in common with Scalia et all than they do with regular people as a class of political elites, and b) the response letter was signed by all 8 justices and that does not sit right both optically and conceptually, and serves as yet another example of a). They literally call each other colleague friends, etc. So how does that work?
I don't know enough to evaluate that argument but that is partly the additional reasons why some people are making a bigger argument than this being a right-wing only thing. E.g. the Democratic justices knew this was happening all along, said nothing, did nothing, etc.
posted by polymodus at 9:13 AM on May 6, 2023 [8 favorites]
I don't know enough to evaluate that argument but that is partly the additional reasons why some people are making a bigger argument than this being a right-wing only thing. E.g. the Democratic justices knew this was happening all along, said nothing, did nothing, etc.
posted by polymodus at 9:13 AM on May 6, 2023 [8 favorites]
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I know this is not actually a possible political outcome given the balance of power in the house and senate, but can supreme court justices be impeached? If not, why not?
posted by rustcrumb at 9:45 AM on May 6, 2023
posted by rustcrumb at 9:45 AM on May 6, 2023
An attempted defense I read often is that while the corruption looks bad, it doesn't matter because the conservative justices would not have made any different rulings in the absence of corruption. I want to drive a stake in this cynical argument because it's both poison to the legitimacy of our government and also just wrong.
Basically this argument depends on a few things - first, that these people would, or could never change their minds. It may be rare, but people's ethics do sometimes evolve over the course of their lives. Also, justices are paid a bit over $200,000 per year, which certainly affords one a comfortable lifestyle, but certainly not one that is beyond all material cares. One can find any number of accounts of folks making six figures who are nonetheless bankrupted by an expensive medical emergency, like cancer in their family. Not to mention the rising cost of education, housing, etc. Insulating justices and their families from _all_ material discomforts, conditional on them continuing to "play ball" surely prevents any kind of moral or intellectual awakening to the consequences of growing wealth and income inequality in our country. It is a very effective way to maintain the increasingly intolerable status quo.
The other effect of this corruption is that it gets them on the bench and keeps them there with golden handcuffs. As the article says, these folks don't generally get to become justices without being ambitious, powerful, and well-connected already. If the only reward were their government paycheck, pension, and a life of austere responsibility, some candidates would not seek nomination. Some others might choose to retire to pursue other opportunities, or simply spend more time with family.
It's absurd that our standard of "corruption" has become that an act is only corrupt if two parties make an explicit agreement to alter political outcomes in exchange for some reward. It is pathetic that such an argument is the best that anyone can muster in defense of these corrupt judges, especially the highest in the land. We can and should hold all our leaders to a higher standard than that.
posted by rustcrumb at 10:02 AM on May 6, 2023 [10 favorites]
Basically this argument depends on a few things - first, that these people would, or could never change their minds. It may be rare, but people's ethics do sometimes evolve over the course of their lives. Also, justices are paid a bit over $200,000 per year, which certainly affords one a comfortable lifestyle, but certainly not one that is beyond all material cares. One can find any number of accounts of folks making six figures who are nonetheless bankrupted by an expensive medical emergency, like cancer in their family. Not to mention the rising cost of education, housing, etc. Insulating justices and their families from _all_ material discomforts, conditional on them continuing to "play ball" surely prevents any kind of moral or intellectual awakening to the consequences of growing wealth and income inequality in our country. It is a very effective way to maintain the increasingly intolerable status quo.
The other effect of this corruption is that it gets them on the bench and keeps them there with golden handcuffs. As the article says, these folks don't generally get to become justices without being ambitious, powerful, and well-connected already. If the only reward were their government paycheck, pension, and a life of austere responsibility, some candidates would not seek nomination. Some others might choose to retire to pursue other opportunities, or simply spend more time with family.
It's absurd that our standard of "corruption" has become that an act is only corrupt if two parties make an explicit agreement to alter political outcomes in exchange for some reward. It is pathetic that such an argument is the best that anyone can muster in defense of these corrupt judges, especially the highest in the land. We can and should hold all our leaders to a higher standard than that.
posted by rustcrumb at 10:02 AM on May 6, 2023 [10 favorites]
>>as they have since the early days of Lincoln.
>Wait what?
I haven't read this George Packer Atlantic piece from 2018 but my take is they got worse and worse over their early decades, eventually prompting the Progressive Era middle-class reaction looking for better government protections against big money.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:03 AM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
>Wait what?
I haven't read this George Packer Atlantic piece from 2018 but my take is they got worse and worse over their early decades, eventually prompting the Progressive Era middle-class reaction looking for better government protections against big money.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:03 AM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
When the supermajority returns this “swamp” will be drained.
posted by aiq at 10:47 AM on May 6, 2023
posted by aiq at 10:47 AM on May 6, 2023
Doh! And just like that, suddenly a rationale for the passive-agressively titled Citizens "United" decison, previously undisclosed , emerges from the shadows.
posted by Fupped Duck at 10:55 AM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Fupped Duck at 10:55 AM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Just utterly shameless how the whole faction Roberts and Scalia came from spent decades arguing that various liberal Supreme Court decisions constituted The End of Democracy! The Judicial Usurpation of Politics!
posted by straight at 12:37 PM on May 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by straight at 12:37 PM on May 6, 2023 [4 favorites]
"What a poor, ignorant, malicious, short-sighted, crapulous mass."
-John Adams on Thomas Paine's famous 1776 pamphlet "Common Sense.'
posted by clavdivs at 1:01 PM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
-John Adams on Thomas Paine's famous 1776 pamphlet "Common Sense.'
posted by clavdivs at 1:01 PM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Scalia argued that it would be “utterly disabling” to require justices to recuse from cases involving “the official actions of friends” within the federal government, because justices tend to be well-connected individuals with lots of friends in high political office. “Many Justices have reached this Court precisely because they were friends of the incumbent President or other senior officials,” Scalia wrote
That just increases the culpability of the system in bringing us to that point. Judges shouldn't be well-connected. They shouldn't get their promotions because they know powerful people.
So both things can't be true: impartial and connected.
posted by rhizome at 1:03 PM on May 6, 2023 [22 favorites]
That just increases the culpability of the system in bringing us to that point. Judges shouldn't be well-connected. They shouldn't get their promotions because they know powerful people.
So both things can't be true: impartial and connected.
posted by rhizome at 1:03 PM on May 6, 2023 [22 favorites]
As any parent can tell you, ethics guidelines are useless without the potential for actual consequences.
posted by gottabefunky at 2:16 PM on May 6, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by gottabefunky at 2:16 PM on May 6, 2023 [7 favorites]
Just utterly shameless how the whole faction Roberts and Scalia came from spent decades arguing that various liberal Supreme Court members were elitist and disconnected from Real Americans!
Anyway there's no reason for justices to voluntarily spend their free time with people from a wide range of professions and socioeconomic statuses. It's not like a profound understanding of people's lived experiences is relevant to the quality of their work.
posted by trig at 3:29 PM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
Anyway there's no reason for justices to voluntarily spend their free time with people from a wide range of professions and socioeconomic statuses. It's not like a profound understanding of people's lived experiences is relevant to the quality of their work.
posted by trig at 3:29 PM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
@dbx & Artw, my comment is related to the other comment I start by citing. The idea that the GOP has been poisoning the republic (generally) since Lincoln in stark contrast to an earnest democrat party is not accurate. Both parties cling with vigor to the corporate teet and have for a long, long time. You don't think human rights were trampled by (D) machine politics in the late 19th century? Go tell it somewhere else. It's complicated. That's fine. This is a continuation, and different, sure. But if it's a categorical difference, well that'll be a good argument.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 4:32 PM on May 6, 2023
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 4:32 PM on May 6, 2023
Eh. Democrats fucking suck, everyone knows that, though generally in a normal sucky neolib way.
Republicans, these specific republicans of right now with no special sidetracks back to pre-Nixon, fucking suck absolutely and extremely and are an existential thread to democracy and the continued existence of humanity as a whole.
posted by Artw at 4:47 PM on May 6, 2023 [8 favorites]
Republicans, these specific republicans of right now with no special sidetracks back to pre-Nixon, fucking suck absolutely and extremely and are an existential thread to democracy and the continued existence of humanity as a whole.
posted by Artw at 4:47 PM on May 6, 2023 [8 favorites]
Democrats fucking suck...generally in a normal sucky neolib way
...who do you think is funding the fascists? It's all corporate money. All.of.it. On.both.sides.
After the Corbyn and the Bernie thing there's just too much obvious evidence that centrists hate the public just as much as any other politician on the far right. Where does 'centrist' start? Just about anything right of AOC, in terms of practical outcomes.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:21 PM on May 6, 2023
...who do you think is funding the fascists? It's all corporate money. All.of.it. On.both.sides.
After the Corbyn and the Bernie thing there's just too much obvious evidence that centrists hate the public just as much as any other politician on the far right. Where does 'centrist' start? Just about anything right of AOC, in terms of practical outcomes.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:21 PM on May 6, 2023
Where does 'centrist' start? Just about anything right of AOC
I'll give this a hard caveat. There ARE smart people who mean well that realize you need to play the game to do anything change-y at all. And when they show up in DC they realize how Hannibal Lecter it is and they decide instead of going home or doing nothing that they'll carve out whatever they can by pretending to play ball. I have no problem with that strategy. And obviously, from the outside, it makes it hard to know who feels what. But it sure sucks for the other non-535 people.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:24 PM on May 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
I'll give this a hard caveat. There ARE smart people who mean well that realize you need to play the game to do anything change-y at all. And when they show up in DC they realize how Hannibal Lecter it is and they decide instead of going home or doing nothing that they'll carve out whatever they can by pretending to play ball. I have no problem with that strategy. And obviously, from the outside, it makes it hard to know who feels what. But it sure sucks for the other non-535 people.
posted by Reasonably Everything Happens at 5:24 PM on May 6, 2023 [3 favorites]
Eh, kinda.
But I fucking hate nazis and tankies more.
posted by Artw at 5:27 PM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
But I fucking hate nazis and tankies more.
posted by Artw at 5:27 PM on May 6, 2023 [1 favorite]
Unlike the fascists, we tankies aren’t getting any of that sweet corporate funding.
posted by davel at 6:06 PM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by davel at 6:06 PM on May 6, 2023 [2 favorites]
>in stark contrast to an earnest [D]emocrat[ic] party is not accurate.
I am not a both-sides-er per sē but can allow the Democrats tended to suck for much of their history up to and certainly including Wilson.
Democrats did, though, put FDR and his merry band of reformists in power in the 30s and the Truman admin did reduce the longstanding racial apartheid in the military with the new Department of Defense to a great extent.
My problem is not so much with the parties of this country, it is the people. We are a nation of children.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:20 PM on May 6, 2023 [6 favorites]
I am not a both-sides-er per sē but can allow the Democrats tended to suck for much of their history up to and certainly including Wilson.
Democrats did, though, put FDR and his merry band of reformists in power in the 30s and the Truman admin did reduce the longstanding racial apartheid in the military with the new Department of Defense to a great extent.
My problem is not so much with the parties of this country, it is the people. We are a nation of children.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:20 PM on May 6, 2023 [6 favorites]
leaving the clear impression that his Court might start striking down ethical statutes if Congress insisted that the justices must comply with them
This is one time where a Parliamentary system would be rather helpful. It would be fantastic if Democrats could run on a platform of "give us the seats in Congress and we'll impeach the fuckers" and have it actually mean something. As it is, even with a supermajority in the Senate and the vast majority of Senate Democrats being willing to convict Thomas it would only take a few holdouts to derail the plan. Given that reality, Roberts has zero reason not to simply refuse to comply with any limitations Congress chooses to impose by law.
I am not at all in favor of removing justices from the bench because I disagree with their rulings or their (even remotely plausible) interpretation of the law, but I am absolutely in favor of removing justices who demonstrate a wilful disregard for their ethical obligations or who attempt to place the court above the other branches by claiming Congress does not have the power to impose any regulations upon it or its members. That's just a batshit insane claim. It's no different than saying that Congress can't impose ethics rules on officials and employees in the executive branch. Even the current crop of extremists don't make that argument.
posted by wierdo at 7:38 AM on May 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
This is one time where a Parliamentary system would be rather helpful. It would be fantastic if Democrats could run on a platform of "give us the seats in Congress and we'll impeach the fuckers" and have it actually mean something. As it is, even with a supermajority in the Senate and the vast majority of Senate Democrats being willing to convict Thomas it would only take a few holdouts to derail the plan. Given that reality, Roberts has zero reason not to simply refuse to comply with any limitations Congress chooses to impose by law.
I am not at all in favor of removing justices from the bench because I disagree with their rulings or their (even remotely plausible) interpretation of the law, but I am absolutely in favor of removing justices who demonstrate a wilful disregard for their ethical obligations or who attempt to place the court above the other branches by claiming Congress does not have the power to impose any regulations upon it or its members. That's just a batshit insane claim. It's no different than saying that Congress can't impose ethics rules on officials and employees in the executive branch. Even the current crop of extremists don't make that argument.
posted by wierdo at 7:38 AM on May 7, 2023 [3 favorites]
Congress is Article I of the Constitution for a reason, yes.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:15 AM on May 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:15 AM on May 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
rustcrumb Correct me if I'm wrong, and I know this is not actually a possible political outcome given the balance of power in the house and senate, but can supreme court justices be impeached? If not, why not?
Yes they can. Same as any other government official. It takes 50%+1 in the House to impeach, and a supermajority in the Senate to remove them from office.
No Justice has ever been removed, but in 1805 one was impeached before being acquitted by the Senate.
So yes, theoretically possible and in theory that's the Constitutional solution for Justices who are corrupt or otherwise misbehaving. In reality there is no possible way the Republicans will ever allow a Republican Justice to be removed, but Democratic Justices can be because enough D's would cooperate to remove from office.
posted by sotonohito at 8:16 AM on May 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
Yes they can. Same as any other government official. It takes 50%+1 in the House to impeach, and a supermajority in the Senate to remove them from office.
No Justice has ever been removed, but in 1805 one was impeached before being acquitted by the Senate.
So yes, theoretically possible and in theory that's the Constitutional solution for Justices who are corrupt or otherwise misbehaving. In reality there is no possible way the Republicans will ever allow a Republican Justice to be removed, but Democratic Justices can be because enough D's would cooperate to remove from office.
posted by sotonohito at 8:16 AM on May 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
I will note, with regards to ethics, that not only does there need to be some actual code of ethics and some method of enforcement.
But, I think more important, we need to dramatically increase the number of Justices and bring a LOT more transparency into the process. The idea of having a tiny cabal of Law Wizards who stand aloof from society and hand down judgements while expecting to be unquestioned and never even criticized.
Let's have 50 Justices. Its harder to corrupt an institution when there's more people in power because you have to corrupt more people.
And let's end this bullshit about banning cameras and recording devices from the Court. And the idea of "leaked" opinions. EVERYTHING should be 100% open with no secrecy at all and automatic removal from office and a lengthy prison sentence for any Justices found to be conspiring to keep anything at all secret.
Every word they say in debate. Every word they say in internal discussion and deal making. Every draft opinion. Every tiny detail of their finances. All of it should be public.
The solution to corruption is transparency.
posted by sotonohito at 8:31 AM on May 7, 2023 [9 favorites]
But, I think more important, we need to dramatically increase the number of Justices and bring a LOT more transparency into the process. The idea of having a tiny cabal of Law Wizards who stand aloof from society and hand down judgements while expecting to be unquestioned and never even criticized.
Let's have 50 Justices. Its harder to corrupt an institution when there's more people in power because you have to corrupt more people.
And let's end this bullshit about banning cameras and recording devices from the Court. And the idea of "leaked" opinions. EVERYTHING should be 100% open with no secrecy at all and automatic removal from office and a lengthy prison sentence for any Justices found to be conspiring to keep anything at all secret.
Every word they say in debate. Every word they say in internal discussion and deal making. Every draft opinion. Every tiny detail of their finances. All of it should be public.
The solution to corruption is transparency.
posted by sotonohito at 8:31 AM on May 7, 2023 [9 favorites]
Senate Judiciary chair says 'everything is on the table' in response to Clarence Thomas revelations - "Durbin made clear Sunday that he hasn't reached 'any conclusion' on pursuing subpoenas in relation to Supreme Court ethics issues, but he acknowledged that the absence of Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein of California would pose a challenge to the committee 'if we go down that path.' 'Right now, with her absence, it's a 10-to-10 Committee, and the majority is not there, and a proxy vote doesn't count in this circumstance,' Durbin said."[10]
posted by kliuless at 12:24 PM on May 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by kliuless at 12:24 PM on May 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
2000 was the first election I voted in and still being relatively a-political (i.e. an ignoramus) prior to The (Real) Steal I voted for Tom Campbell vs Feinstein. My kind of Republican and if his GOP comrades were a better class of people perhaps my kind of politician, sigh.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 5:07 PM on May 7, 2023
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 5:07 PM on May 7, 2023
And Durbin's comment means exactly nothing.
The Senate will not enforce its subpoenas, every single Justice including the "liberals", has signed on to a statement telling Congress to fuck off and that under no circumstances will they ever testify, answer questions, or in any way at all permit themselves to be investigated, so Durbin will say a few things about integrity or whatever and then nothing will happen.
And, let's not forget, even if we do pretend to believe in the fantasy that somehow the Senate really will conduct an investigation and uncover absolute proof of massive corruption impeachment has to begin in the House, the House is currently controlled by Republicans, therefore there will not be an impeachment vote.
This is all pure grandstanding by Durbin et al with no actual, real, meaning.
The fact that Zombie Feinstein is continuing to do the work of the Republicans by "being in the Senate" while in fact being basically dead in a hospital somewhere is a nice excuse for Durbin, but if she was replaced on the committee by Bernie Sanders or whoever it STILL wouldn't actually mean the committee would do anything but issue a few sternly worded letters then shrug and move on when the Supreme Court tells them to pound sand.
We see, yet again, the way the Senate must be very slow, very deliberate, and anyone who asks for maybe just a little mor urgency is nothing but a childish fool who must be ignored with maximal contempt and scorn, right up until something threatens a rich person's comfort at which point the Senate LITERALLY passes bills overnight.
All those rules and slowdowns and inabilities to do anything because some fossilized choad still has a heartbeat despite being gone and never returning to the Senate in person, all that is just an excuse to do nothing.
We saw that the Senate is fully capable of speed and decisive action when it chooses to be during the horror of protesters actually exercising 1st Amendment rights and protesting outside Supreme Court Justice Alcoholic Rapist's house. Less than 24 hours passed between the protest and the Senate passing a law to give SCOTUS Justices massive security to make sure they never had to even see a protester.
So when Durbin says that his hands are tied because Feinstein isn't quite dead yet you know it's just a lie. The Senate can act quickly when it chooses to. It doesn't choose to.
posted by sotonohito at 5:29 AM on May 8, 2023 [5 favorites]
The Senate will not enforce its subpoenas, every single Justice including the "liberals", has signed on to a statement telling Congress to fuck off and that under no circumstances will they ever testify, answer questions, or in any way at all permit themselves to be investigated, so Durbin will say a few things about integrity or whatever and then nothing will happen.
And, let's not forget, even if we do pretend to believe in the fantasy that somehow the Senate really will conduct an investigation and uncover absolute proof of massive corruption impeachment has to begin in the House, the House is currently controlled by Republicans, therefore there will not be an impeachment vote.
This is all pure grandstanding by Durbin et al with no actual, real, meaning.
The fact that Zombie Feinstein is continuing to do the work of the Republicans by "being in the Senate" while in fact being basically dead in a hospital somewhere is a nice excuse for Durbin, but if she was replaced on the committee by Bernie Sanders or whoever it STILL wouldn't actually mean the committee would do anything but issue a few sternly worded letters then shrug and move on when the Supreme Court tells them to pound sand.
We see, yet again, the way the Senate must be very slow, very deliberate, and anyone who asks for maybe just a little mor urgency is nothing but a childish fool who must be ignored with maximal contempt and scorn, right up until something threatens a rich person's comfort at which point the Senate LITERALLY passes bills overnight.
All those rules and slowdowns and inabilities to do anything because some fossilized choad still has a heartbeat despite being gone and never returning to the Senate in person, all that is just an excuse to do nothing.
We saw that the Senate is fully capable of speed and decisive action when it chooses to be during the horror of protesters actually exercising 1st Amendment rights and protesting outside Supreme Court Justice Alcoholic Rapist's house. Less than 24 hours passed between the protest and the Senate passing a law to give SCOTUS Justices massive security to make sure they never had to even see a protester.
So when Durbin says that his hands are tied because Feinstein isn't quite dead yet you know it's just a lie. The Senate can act quickly when it chooses to. It doesn't choose to.
posted by sotonohito at 5:29 AM on May 8, 2023 [5 favorites]
Mob Justice. It seems that the supremes are pretty untouchable, at least in the short term. But I wonder if the DOJ or other law enforcement entities can go after Crow, Leo, et al. for bribery. Much as some prostitution stings target the johns rather than the sex workers.
posted by TedW at 12:48 PM on May 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by TedW at 12:48 PM on May 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
Another thought that has appeared above but is worth revisiting: The whole idea that the Supreme Court is the final authority on the constitutionality of laws was basically made up out of whole cloth in Marbury vs. Madison; given the current climate regarding things that were previously thought to be settled, why should Biden, the DOJ, etc. feel obliged to honor anything the Supreme Court does? “The Supreme Court has made its decision; now let them enforce it.” That would be a major shift in the way the US is governed, but there is already a major shift going on anyway, as exemplified by the fact that one of the two political parties no longer feels obligated to even put out a platform of ideas.
posted by TedW at 1:06 PM on May 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by TedW at 1:06 PM on May 8, 2023 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that's a dangerous direction to go in. Taking away the judicial system's power to declare laws unconstitutional or illegitimate is what right wing governments in Poland and Hungary have done, and what the right wing government in Israel is currently trying to do. (The country is currently in its twentieth straight week of protests about it.) It's not because these governments are good actors trying to defend democracy and human rights.
The overarching problem of maintaining checks and balances given capture by bad actors is a hard one, but getting rid of checks and balances is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
posted by trig at 1:23 PM on May 8, 2023 [3 favorites]
The overarching problem of maintaining checks and balances given capture by bad actors is a hard one, but getting rid of checks and balances is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
posted by trig at 1:23 PM on May 8, 2023 [3 favorites]
one of the two political parties no longer feels obligated to even put out a platform of ideas
Um... that's not what the document you linked actually says.
There's a preamble there that offers a collection of handwavey excuses for not updating the platform, but the rest of the document is indeed a platform. It's explicitly the same collection of terrible ideas they had in 2016.
posted by flabdablet at 1:29 PM on May 8, 2023
Um... that's not what the document you linked actually says.
There's a preamble there that offers a collection of handwavey excuses for not updating the platform, but the rest of the document is indeed a platform. It's explicitly the same collection of terrible ideas they had in 2016.
posted by flabdablet at 1:29 PM on May 8, 2023
Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee received $453,300 from Crow between 2001 and 2022.The members and amounts:
- Cornyn: $294,800
- Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa): $46,600
- Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.): $23,900
- Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas): $23,500
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.): $20,600
- Sen. Mike Lee (Utah): $19,500
- Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.): $13,400
- Sen. John Kennedy (La.): $8,300
- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.): $6,400
posted by Mitheral at 4:43 PM on May 12, 2023 [2 favorites]
What 'Varsity Blues' and Supreme Court fraud reversals tell us about the system
posted by Artw at 7:19 PM on May 12, 2023
posted by Artw at 7:19 PM on May 12, 2023
Why the Supreme Court Is Blind to Its Own Corruption NYTimes gift link
By Randall D. Eliason
Mr. Eliason is the former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
By Randall D. Eliason
Mr. Eliason is the former chief of the fraud and public corruption section at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia.
Over more than two decades, the Supreme Court has gutted laws aimed at fighting corruption and at limiting the ability of the powerful to enrich public officials in a position to advance their interests. As a result, today wealthy individuals and corporations may buy political access and influence with little fear of legal consequences, either for them or for the beneficiaries of their largess.posted by mumimor at 4:40 AM on May 19, 2023
« Older Brydge Collapses | Sailing boat rescued by the Götheborg Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by gentlyepigrams at 7:56 PM on May 5, 2023 [14 favorites]