This person, masquerading as a judge, serves as a clear illustration of a tainted justice system.
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
882 points (98.2% liked)
politics
19072 readers
4380 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's important to remember that not a single justice said the SC needs oversight for this stuff...
There's clearly an issue, but none of them will admit because to them the optics of the court being corrupt is worse than the court being corrupt.
The whole system needs redone.
In light of Citizens United, they are just being the change they want to see.
load more comments
(4 replies)
It is impossible to believe statements from our government that they take bribery and corruption seriously while this man remains a member of the Supreme Court.
Hypocrisy is the main tool of a conservative. We're never going to shame these savages who don't believe in law and order in the first place. The only thing they understand is the lash of inevitable consequences.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Does it even matter at this point? Nothing will be done. He'll be there until he croaks, being as corrupt as he feels like.
On the other hand, Alabama showed that you don't have to do what SCOTUS says if you don't want to anyway, so even that may not matter.
A lot of things can be done if awareness of this corruption convinces voters that something should be done. A lot of Democratic leadership has come around to the possibility of packing the court given a suitable majority to do so. Given that the GOP's lead candidate is losing to a guy with one foot in federal prison, 2024 could be a real blowout for their party if their trajectory doesn't change.
Consider what happens if the GOP splits in half because the party can't unite behind Trump or DeSantis- it would present a golden opportunity for a supermajority to pass constitutional amendments regulating the supreme court, guaranteeing equal civil and voting rights, ensuring healthcare, housing, and education for all, and more.
Stop blackpilling when the enemy is withering.
Consider what happens if the GOP splits in half because the party can’t unite behind Trump or DeSantis
Based on polling, that split will be something like 95-5.
load more comments
(7 replies)
More like CynicalSquid. But you’ve got a point.
How can you not be cynical about SCOTUS at this point?
I wouldn’t know. But I guess 38 vacations paid by billionnaires wouldn’t hurt, right?
What a fucking piece of shit. How bad does it have to get before someone finds a way to remove him from the court and put him in jail?
He is a House Justice for FedSoc, as long as he keeps shuffling and stirring the lemonade he ain't going anywhere.
It was honestly incredibly stupid of the American founders to assume making these guys practically untouchable would make them above corruption rather than the perfect targets for it. Childishly naive.
People used to be able to storm the courthouse and physically remove judges who were corrupt. The government militarizing the police and separating the elected officials from the people is the problem.
The corrupt should fear us (First amendment).
First plus one?
Yeah I totally meant the second amendment. I'm a retired federal official. I'm embarrassed with myself. Lol. I'm getting old, though, so I forgive my mistakes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It was honestly incredibly stupid of the American founders to assume making these guys practically untouchable would make them above corruption rather than the perfect targets for it. Childishly naive.
I disagree.
The way they looked at it: If judges were elected or could otherwise be replaced or removed easily, their decisions would much more likely be based not on a correct interpretation of the law, but what would keep the lobbyist money flowing in, what they think would get them re-elected, or they would simply parrot the rulings of whoever could have them removed from the bench. Having them be lifetime appointments (in theory) would remove all of that, and they still gave Congress a way to remove a corrupt judge anyway if one of them did get out of line.
They expected (perhaps naively) that corruption would be rare and would never engulf more than one branch of government. They never expected a situation where two branches of government became equally corrupt at the same time. That's where the real problem lies; the fail-safe that they put into place in case of corruption became corrupt itself.
Had our government worked the way the founding fathers intended, Clarence Thomas would have been heaved off the bench at warp speed by Congress about four seconds after his first bribery scandal broke. The problem isn't the system. The system that the founding fathers gave us in the late 1700s was fine. The problem is that there's no way they could have possibly foreseen the levels of corruption that exist 250 years later.
250 years from now, there are going to be a ton of policies we're coming up with today that are going to seem just as stupid and naive.
The problem is that there's no way they could have possibly foreseen the levels of corruption that exist 250 years later.
Corruption in government isn't an American invention.
See also: Rome.
I don't think the founders really thought that much about it. Article III was pretty much phoned in- so much so that the basic function of SCOTUS--constitutional review of the rest of the government--was created out of thin air by the Court itself. Literally all the constitution says about it is that the judicial power shall be vested in a supreme court and lower courts to be created by federal statute.
The founders envisioned a weak government that could be torn down and rebuilt by the people as needed. Perhaps we have been neglecting our duty.
That to secure these rights, Governments are ilnstituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
--Thomas Jefferson
You're not even allowed to receive any of this stuff as a basic account executive at most companies, and in radio & TV it is explicitly forbidden by law. How the fuck is it legal for a Supreme Court Justice?
I've been watching Fall of Civilizations and it is incredible how often civilizations rot, decay, and then wither away into nothing due to corruption. Humans never learn the freaking lesson. Carthage lasted ~800 years—the USA is definitely not going to last that long.
Eastern Rome was an absolute shitfest after they lost Egypt. Manzikert was a disaster because the nobility was to concerned about the aftermath. There's so many parallels with the United States.
Why isn't this guy on the ground in the street?
America don't stand for shit.
If only all those school shooters you have redirected their energy into these dudes
“We don’t need a code of ethics.”
🎵On the first day of Christmas, a billionaire gave to me, a road trip in an RV 🎵
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The new report is the broadest look yet at how Thomas’ social circle has funded – with limited disclosure to the public – a regular stream of extravagant excursions and events since he became a Supreme Court justice.
The latest investigation unearths a pattern of gifts to Thomas from Crow and three other billionaires who have been major contributors to Republican causes: David Sokol, the former heir apparent of Berkshire Hathaway; the late H. Wayne Huizenga, who made his vast fortune in his ownership of Blockbuster, Waste Management Inc. and other major companies; and Paul “Tony” Novelly, who formerly owned an oil company.
Both the lack of transparency about his financial relationships with Republican megadonors, and the jet-setting lifestyle he’s enjoyed because of those friendships, put Thomas out of step with how lower court judges and other government officials approach their ethical obligations, legal experts told ProPublica.
However, their donations to political causes on the right put them in sync with the justice’s far-right jurisprudence, and the friendships that were the source of the gifts and hospitality confirmed by ProPublica all seem to have begun after Thomas joined the most powerful court in the country.
Thomas has also recently been scrutinized for an undisclosed loan he received, reported by The New York Times last week, from a wealthy friend to pay for a $267,230 RV he purchased in 1999.
The friend, Anthony Welters, who has been a major Democratic fundraiser and whose wife served as an ambassador in the Obama administration, told the Times the loan had been “satisfied” but declined to detail on what terms.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
“The Supreme Court follows some of the financial disclosure rules mandated for lower courts judges, but in a statement earlier this year, the justices indicated that they believed they were doing so voluntarily. The justices are also not subject to other procedures used in lower courts to address potential conflicts of interest.”
I don’t see what could possibly go wrong.
“Chief Justice John Roberts and other members of the court – as well as many Republicans on the Hill – have signaled that they believe that the justices can be trusted to police themselves on ethical issues.”
As is clearly supported by the evidence.
“The new report is the broadest look yet at how Thomas’ social circle has funded – with limited disclosure to the public – a regular stream of extravagant excursions and events since he became a Supreme Court justice. These costly trips and travel perks often went unreported on the justice’s financial disclosure forms, ProPublica said in its investigation.”
Wait, wut?
Good reporting, ProPublica
As someone from a small, irrelevant European country, I remember looking up to the US as this land of freedom and justice when I was a kid. Growing up is realizing that it simply isn't true.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I wonder how the whole thing works on a practical level, and is Thomas the only one in on it? Do these people just constantly lavish Thomas (others) with gifts with a sort of unspoken expectation that he'll rule the way they want whenever things come up? Maybe somebody just gives an opinion to Thomas during one of these outings and that's his direction he's supposed to take.
"That thing is so silly, don't you think? I can't imagine why anybody would go along with that." Maybe something small like that, but the implication is there, "You need to go against that thing", whatever the thing happens to be for that court case. And it's just the understood arrangement that if Thomas wants to keep these benefits coming and not disappoint his friends, he should rule the way he'd expect they'd want him to rule.
Or is it more explicit than that and they have a list of all the cases coming up and they just tell Thomas how they'd like him to rule, then just leave the specifics of how he's supposed interpret the law up to Thomas to figure out? He's told out to rule first, then sort of works backwards from there to figure out his actual legal arguments for it.
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›