SCOTUS Watch

[malchior]

If people are submitting forms and no one is checking them, then what in the actual f are we even doing anymore?

The good thing about them is that journalists can use them to write stories. And that's about it. There is no real mechanism to enforce any code of conduct. The sole remedy is impeachment. At the SCOTUS-level that's about all they can do. You can't fire them. You can't fine them. They'll try to hide iffy conduct but that's mostly because of image reasons. At the lower levels, the same applies but the Judicial Conference can make recommendations about a Appeals/District Court judge that could make life slightly uncomfortable by taking away the best assignments, etc. but there are no real teeth to the rules. It's almost like when people are recruited for their lack of judicial ethics in the first place that they are at high risk to run amok.

[Smoove_B]

I mean, someone can check but as the article notes, there is no enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court.

Verifying all the information has been provided on the form vs requiring all the information is provided on the form are two separate issues, imho. If no one is even looking at them until something happens (like what malchior is suggesting), that goes to my wtf observation.

Not having the ability to force a Justice to provide information or not being able to do anything if they refuse is likely also a problem (as you've noted). Hell of a nation we have here, eh?

[LawBeefaroni]

Power corrupts. It's not only true for people, but institutions too.

[pr0ner]

Who the f rubber-stamped a form with a real estate transaction that had a blank space for the purchaser? Or is this a situation where the clerk knows better than to question the almighty Justices on the forms they submit?

Either way, as someone that literally had to submit a 14 page form to the state regarding my entire household's personal finances to *volunteer* as a local official, this is enraging.

The blank space was on a federal disclosure form. Are those approved by anyone or just filed somewhere?

At least for us rank and file government employees, disclosure forms are checked and we get a response back letting us know if we're okay or not.

[malchior]

I mean, someone can check but as the article notes, there is no enforcement mechanism for the Supreme Court.

Verifying all the information has been provided on the form vs requiring all the information is provided on the form are two separate issues, imho. If no one is even looking at them until something happens (like what malchior is suggesting), that goes to my wtf observation.

The Judicial Conference looks at them but I don't know if anyone is verifying them. I can't find a mention of random audits but perhaps they are happening. Perhaps there are investigations but in the end it's mostly a sunshine rule and that's about it. WSJ ran a story about a year ago (when I was searching around I came upon it) it is paywalled but apparently they flagged 100s of judges ruling on cases where they had financial conflicts. The corruption? The whole system is soaking in it.

Not having the ability to force a Justice to provide information or not being able to do anything if they refuse is likely also a problem (as you've noted). Hell of a nation we have here, eh?

It worked...until it didn't. That was when we threw vetting them for their character, background, and qualifications out for political fit.

[malchior]

Nothing says we are a functioning democracy like this headline. I get separation of powers but there are limits. He won't talk to the public in any form and we absolutely deserve answers to basic questions at this point.

Edit: I'm also hearing chatter that Durbin is taking a lot of heat for not acting more actively to investigate. Unfortunate he has his hands tied on even basic actions like a subpoena because of Feinstein. This is beyond absurd.

[Smoove_B]

Of course. He doesn't answer to anyone - how dare they question him.

[malchior]

Well guess that covers it. A letter lecturing Durbin and then says btw we do have a code of Ethics. Attached. Suck it. Subtext: We're tyrants, we're corrupt, and the American people better get used to it.

[El Guapo]

Soooo...it's appropriate for a Chief Justice to testify before Congress as long as it is about something unimportant?

[Isgrimnur]

" I don' wanna."

[Kraken]

I can see how having the last word on the law could make one feel above it, and ethics unenforced in law are optional anyway.

[LordMortis]

And Supreme Court continue to wonder why the faith in the Courts continues to go down the shitter. It's definitely at an all time low in my lifetime and the bottom still isn't in sight. When respect for SCOTUS goes, so goes respect for the law. Thanks, Trump (and Bushes (set by Reagan))

Also, when we get the horrid Trump/Biden rematch, Biden needs to hammer the SC like Trump did in 2016. The SC is the battle for the soul of the nation and them have been winning for far too long.

[Carpet_pissr]

And Supreme Court continue to wonder why the faith in the Courts continues to go down the shitter.

Do they really wonder? They’re pretty smart, I think they all probably know. Roberts pretending to wonder, I’ll buy.

[El Guapo]

And Supreme Court continue to wonder why the faith in the Courts continues to go down the shitter.

Do they really wonder? They’re pretty smart, I think they all probably know. Roberts pretending to wonder, I’ll buy.

I dunno. I think they are genuinely full of themselves and their roles, and do see themselves as faithfully applying the law and not as political actors. I also think that they think that faith in the courts is undermined by some combination of people not understanding them or what they are doing, and by political figures and the media.

[malchior]

I dunno. I think they are genuinely full of themselves and their roles, and do see themselves as faithfully applying the law and not as political actors. I also think that they think that faith in the courts is undermined by some combination of people not understanding them or what they are doing, and by political figures and the media.

They saw these things but I'm getting to the point it seem unreal that they'd be this out of touch with reality. What I can't get past is they said opposite things when they were questioned that make it seem they are cognizant of the problems. They avoided tipping their hands. Frankly I just don't believe this. For most of the Conservatives I am sure they partly believe it where it touches the edges of issues. However, most of them know they have power, justices like Thomas know they are untouchable, and the opportunity to make real change is too tempting. They are seizing it and blatantly enjoying all the perks I'm sure they believe they've earned. I call them corrupt tyrants for a reason.

[Smoove_B]

It's almost like a lifetime appointment without fear of realistically being mpeached or any other meaningful consequences was a bad idea.

[El Guapo]

I dunno. I think they are genuinely full of themselves and their roles, and do see themselves as faithfully applying the law and not as political actors. I also think that they think that faith in the courts is undermined by some combination of people not understanding them or what they are doing, and by political figures and the media.

They saw these things but I'm getting to the point it seem unreal that they'd be this out of touch with reality.

Have you met....people?

[malchior]

I dunno. I think they are genuinely full of themselves and their roles, and do see themselves as faithfully applying the law and not as political actors. I also think that they think that faith in the courts is undermined by some combination of people not understanding them or what they are doing, and by political figures and the media.

They saw these things but I'm getting to the point it seem unreal that they'd be this out of touch with reality.

Have you met....people?

Sure but in the larger scheme they seem like they're playing a game and then protesting innocence behind multiple shields including this one. I don't buy it. For example, on ethics Thomas complied with disclosure requirement until the early 2000s until the first few times people called him out. Then he hid it. There is also *zero chance* to me that he also had no idea that selling his mother's house to a huge political donor was unethical. I don't even buy for a second he just set about grumbling about unfair media attacks. I mean he said that out loud but the guy is too smart to believe it. He's just as corrupt as people testified about at his confirmation hearings. I have similar thoughts with the recent Gorsuch story. If he was on the up and up, he'd have filled out the box about the identity of the buyers. He had already been confirmed he could have easily laid out the case why the sale was legitimate including the shared ownership and the potential lack of awareness of all the parties. Instead he hid it.

On candor, we had Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett swearing up and down they respect precedent and then upon confirmation immediately joining multiple decisions that ignored long-established precedents. They also leaned on readings of the law that were also more extreme than they testified to at their confirmation hearings. Those extreme views also didn't show up in much of their previous jurisprudence. They probably just hid their views until they had power. That's why not seeing reality is iffy to me. They knew enough to craft the mask they needed to ascend with a clear, precise view of what reality was. We're supposed to believe then they drifted into the clouds? It just doesn't track for me.

[Smoove_B]

I'm sure it was just a coincidence:

While billionaire real estate mogul Harlan Crow was lavishing Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas with luxury gifts, Thomas voted to strike down federal tenant protections that might hurt the profits of Crow’s company.

Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas voted to end federal tenant protections that his billionaire benefactor’s company says threatened its real estate profit margins, according to corporate documents reviewed by the Lever. Thomas did not disclose his relationship with real estate billionaire Harlan Crow, nor did he recuse himself from the 2021 case, despite its potential impact on Crow Holdings.

..

In August 2021, Thomas was one of the six justices who voted to strike down a federal administrative moratorium on evictions, originally enacted in September 2020 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to halt the spread of COVID-19. In June, Thomas was one of four justices who voted to end the moratorium — but the majority voted to leave it in place because it was set to expire the following month.

[Unagi]

Honestly, my blind/(previously appropriate?) love for this country has seriously turned into a 'Is there a better place for my children to raise their families?' disposition in the last 7-8 years.

I never thought I would feel that way as I grew up (like many, I decorated my childhood bike in Red/White/Blue streamers for 4th-of-July parades), but now I could easily describe it as probably the best way to protect and support my germline - to entirely reject the direction this country is going, take no part... Sadly I don't have the funds to just grab the family and jump-ship as it were.

And, that's almost now being 'sealed' by the Thomas revelations combined with the newest members of the court.

[El Guapo]

Honestly, my blind/(previously appropriate?) love for this country has seriously turned into a 'Is there a better place for my children to raise their families?' disposition in the last 7-8 years.

I never thought I would feel that way as I grew up (like many, I decorated my childhood bike in Red/White/Blue streamers for 4th-of-July parades), but now I could easily describe it as probably the best way to protect and support my germline - to entirely reject the direction this country is going, take no part... Sadly I don't have the funds to just grab the family and jump-ship as it were.

And, that's almost now being 'sealed' by the Thomas revelations combined with the newest members of the court.

My daughter is starting high school in the fall. My pessimism over the future direction of this country has reached the point where I'm going to advocate for her / us to consider colleges abroad (at least in Toronto as a start) to give us an international grounding so that we can more easily relocate if and when this country descends into authoritarian hell.

[Blackhawk]

I wish leaving was an option (money aside, very few places allow disabled immigrants), but a surprising number of places seem to be following the same model that we are. I'm not sure there's going to be anywhere left to go.

[El Guapo]

I wish leaving was an option (money aside, very few places allow disabled immigrants), but a surprising number of places seem to be following the same model that we are. I'm not sure there's going to be anywhere left to go.

Yeah, that is indeed one of the problems. In addition to all the difficulties in money and otherwise in relocating, one wouldn't want to go through all that, put down roots somewhere new, and then immediately have the same issues there. Like I think my wife's first choice if we moved abroad would probably be Israel, but there are obvious authoritarian issues there too, plus a lot more serious terrorism / war / strife issues.

[Unagi]

I've got my 'dream' set on New Zealand.

More or less no chance we will do anything like that... I mean... actually, I shouldn't say that these days.

[El Guapo]

I've got my 'dream' set on New Zealand.

More or less no chance we will do anything like that... I mean... actually, I shouldn't say that these days.

Big fan of sheep?

[Unagi]

I've got my 'dream' set on New Zealand.

More or less no chance we will do anything like that... I mean... actually, I shouldn't say that these days.

Big fan of sheep?

I've just enjoyed PM Jacinda Ardern's story and the country as a whole seems to be on liberal high ground in these rising seas... also the country seemed to nail their Covid response (compared to most other countries). And they can pass gun control laws and not implode. Sheep can be fun too! Also, Volcanos. And gorgeous land... and the world kinda doesn't care about them too much.... seems like it would be nice.

[LawBeefaroni]

Ginni Thomas was vetting appointees for the [incoming] Bush administration while Clarence and the gang were deciding Bush v. Gore. This all goes way, way back.

[Daehawk]

Revealed: Senate investigation into Brett Kavanaugh assault claims contained serious omissions

The 28-page report was released by the Republican senator Chuck Grassley, the then chairman of the Senate judiciary committee. It prominently included an unfounded and unverified claim that one of Kavanaugh’s accusers – a fellow Yale graduate named Deborah Ramirez – was “likely” mistaken when she alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a dormitory party because another Yale student was allegedly known for such acts.

The suggestion that Kavanaugh was the victim of mistaken identity was sent to the judiciary committee by a Colorado-based attorney named Joseph C Smith Jr, according to a non-redacted copy of a 2018 email obtained by the Guardian. Smith was a friend and former colleague of the judiciary committee’s then lead counsel, Mike Davis.

Smith was also a member of the Federalist Society, which strongly supported Kavanaugh’s supreme court nomination, and appears to have a professional relationship with the Federalist Society’s co-founder, Leonard Leo, whom he thanked in the acknowledgments of his book Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State.

[malchior]

Surprise! Investigations into Kavanaugh during his inauguration have all sorts of gaps. And include the appearance that evidence to protect Kavanaugh came from unreliable deeply conflicted sources. This is ugly stuff.

A 2018 Senate investigation that found there was “no evidence” to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault against the US supreme court justice Brett Kavanaugh contained serious omissions, according to new information obtained by the Guardian.

The 28-page report was released by the Republican senator Chuck Grassley, the then chairman of the Senate judiciary committee. It prominently included an unfounded and unverified claim that one of Kavanaugh’s accusers – a fellow Yale graduate named Deborah Ramirez – was “likely” mistaken when she alleged that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a dormitory party because another Yale student was allegedly known for such acts.

The suggestion that Kavanaugh was the victim of mistaken identity was sent to the judiciary committee by a Colorado-based attorney named Joseph C Smith Jr, according to a non-redacted copy of a 2018 email obtained by the Guardian. Smith was a friend and former colleague of the judiciary committee’s then lead counsel, Mike Davis.

Smith was also a member of the Federalist Society, which strongly supported Kavanaugh’s supreme court nomination, and appears to have a professional relationship with the Federalist Society’s co-founder, Leonard Leo, whom he thanked in the acknowledgments of his book Under God: George Washington and the Question of Church and State.

Smith wrote to Davis in the 29 September 2018 email that he was in a class behind Kavanaugh and Ramirez (who graduated in the class of 1987) and believed Ramirez was likely mistaken in identifying Kavanaugh.

Instead, Smith said it was a fellow classmate named Jack Maxey, who was a member of Kavanaugh’s fraternity, who allegedly had a “reputation” for exposing himself, and had once done so at a party. To back his claim, Smith also attached a photograph of Maxey exposing himself in his fraternity’s 1988 yearbook picture.

The allegation that Ramirez was likely mistaken was included in the Senate committee’s final report even though Maxey – who was described but not named – was not attending Yale at the time of the alleged incident.

[stessier]

Daehawk needs to come in here and BAM you - by almost 7 hours!

[malchior]

Huh. I checked the thread first too! Weird. Anyway, this piece is worth reading if you have WaPo access. I really admire good satire especially when it savagely cuts to the core of how outrageous this is.

[malchior]

Alito pulls an OJ in an interview with the WSJ. It wasn't me...here's the *real motive*.

He then goes on to whine about how they became targets of assassination. I don't know if there has been such a bunch of crybaby tyrants before. You want to act like a tyrant and then get upset that people don't respect you? Sorry buddy, that's life. Talk about a loathsome creature. We deserve so much better than this small, petty troll.

Justice Alito says the marshal “did a good job with the resources that were available to her” and agrees that the evidence was insufficient for a public accusation. “I personally have a pretty good idea who is responsible, but that’s different from the level of proof that is needed to name somebody,” he says. He’s certain about the motive: “It was a part of an effort to prevent the Dobbs draft . . . from becoming the decision of the court. And that’s how it was used for those six weeks by people on the outside—as part of the campaign to try to intimidate the court.”

That campaign included unlawful assemblies outside justices’ homes, and that wasn’t the worst of it. “Those of us who were thought to be in the majority, thought to have approved my draft opinion, were really targets of assassination,” Justice Alito says. “It was rational for people to believe that they might be able to stop the decision in Dobbs by killing one of us.” On June 8, an armed man was arrested outside the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh; the suspect was later charged with attempted assassination and has pleaded not guilty.

Edit: This! An unaccountable tyrant whining ad nauseum about how people are mean to him. It'd be unbelievable but it's the truth. We are governed by the most absurd, broken garbage people. It's getting to be time to water the tree.

[LordMortis]

I dunno if it's whiny to criticize people with guns protesting outside of the homes of SC justices but he is completely out of touch with his position and the burdens he is placing on the people with his constitutional powers and how the SC is becoming a weapon of the tyrannical minority... Or perhaps even have become, while they sit on high with the literal value of their position purchased with cash and zeal.

[malchior]

I dunno if it's whiny to criticize people with guns protesting outside of the homes of SC justices

Sure but then again he has also said that many other people have to live that way while he has police protection. Still that wasn't all he was whining about - it was a list of grievances from one of the most powerful men in the country. He is such a sniveling unworthy prick.

he is completely out of touch with his position and the burdens he is placing on the people with his constitutional powers and how the SC is becoming a weapon of the tyrannical minority... Or perhaps even have become, while they sit on high with the literal value of their position purchased with cash and zeal.

After Dobbs there is no doubt IMO that they are illegitimate tyrants. If the circumstances were different maybe there'd be a case. For example, if they had laid out their beliefs that Roe and Casey were wrong at least we'd have sat them with informed consent. Instead they lied over and over to our faces and then when they had the first opportunity snatched rights away from people. That is where they crossed the Rubicon and became illegitimate to many.

And since then in the midst of more crises they've become hyper "emo", petulant, and arrogant. And frankly won't have the decency to shut the fuck up about it. The Conservatives run around shooting their mouths off regularly about how misunderstood they are. To hell with the lot of them.

[Smoove_B]

This is new information, right?

Two years after John Roberts' confirmation as the Supreme Court's chief justice in 2005, his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, made a pivot. After a long and distinguished career as a lawyer, she refashioned herself as a legal recruiter, a matchmaker who pairs job-hunting lawyers up with corporations and firms.

Roberts told a friend that the change was motivated by a desire to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest, given that her husband was now the highest-ranking judge in the country. "There are many paths to the good life," she said. "There are so many things to do if you're open to change and opportunity."

And life was indeed good for the Robertses, at least for the years 2007 to 2014. During that eight-year stretch, according to internal records from her employer, Jane Roberts generated a whopping $10.3 million in commissions, paid out by corporations and law firms for placing high-dollar lawyers with them.

...

At least one of the firms that paid Jane Roberts — WilmerHale — later argued before SCOTUS. John Roberts did not recuse, and voted in favor of WilmerHale’s client.

[Holman]

I dunno if it's whiny to criticize people with guns protesting outside of the homes of SC justices but he is completely out of touch with his position and the burdens he is placing on the people with his constitutional powers and how the SC is becoming a weapon of the tyrannical minority... Or perhaps even have become, while they sit on high with the literal value of their position purchased with cash and zeal.

I am told by Republicans that protesting with guns is exactly what the Founders intended.

However, was there any other case than the guy who brought a gun near to Kavanaugh's house and who called 911 to ask for help because he knew he was having a mental health crisis?

[malchior]

I dunno if it's whiny to criticize people with guns protesting outside of the homes of SC justices but he is completely out of touch with his position and the burdens he is placing on the people with his constitutional powers and how the SC is becoming a weapon of the tyrannical minority... Or perhaps even have become, while they sit on high with the literal value of their position purchased with cash and zeal.

I am told by Republicans that protesting with guns is exactly what the Founders intended.

However, was there any other case than the guy who brought a gun near to Kavanaugh's house and who called 911 to ask for help because he knew he was having a mental health crisis?

No other. It's convenient for his whining though and the media gets to talk about the 'attempted assassination' without context.

[malchior]

We're starting to build an empirical record that shows a pattern. In essence, the majority with limited input by the minority is divided about what they want to accept for debate and then slow to decide. Is that lots of debate about how far they can push things? The liberals are busy writing dissents? Concurring opinions that try to reintroduce extreme positions that they couldn't get a majority to sign onto?

However, they are often uniform about what will be outright decided and those hit the shadow docket. They are def doing what they want. It has to be framed again that they are enabled by a machine out there funded by would be despotic oligarchs churning out hard-right lawsuits to get them in front of these tyrants so they can circumvent the deadlock in Congress.

It sure looks like we're starting see the outlines of a super legislature. A group of unelected judges with ethics issues and deep animosity for plurality governance making decisions way out of line with the public. It is about as undemocratic as it could be and we very well might be seeing the end of our republic playing out here.

[malchior]

Savage

[Carpet_pissr]

And Crowe and Thomas were probably watching that, together, laughing right along with everyone else. ‘It’s funny because it’s true!!! LOL!’