Had it up to HERE with this [SCOTUS], Thread

Stabbity Style

jungleroomx wrote: »

So if I don't want to suffer any laws and become openly corrupt, just become a judge. Neat.

Pretty much, yeah. Well, ideally get up to federal level somehow. Once you're a federal judge, you're basically in no matter how corrupt you are.

jungleroomx

Stabbity Style wrote: »

jungleroomx wrote: »

So if I don't want to suffer any laws and become openly corrupt, just become a judge. Neat.

Pretty much, yeah. Well, ideally get up to federal level somehow. Once you're a federal judge, you're basically in no matter how corrupt you are.

Let's hope they pass even more laws making their ability to be corrupt confidential.

Dark_Side

jungleroomx wrote: »

Stabbity Style wrote: »

jungleroomx wrote: »

So if I don't want to suffer any laws and become openly corrupt, just become a judge. Neat.

Pretty much, yeah. Well, ideally get up to federal level somehow. Once you're a federal judge, you're basically in no matter how corrupt you are.

Let's hope they pass even more laws making their ability to be corrupt confidential.

I'm not even sure they need to. Ginni Thomas tried to overthrow the US government, but it didn't stop Clarence Thomas from ruling on a case indirectly involving her. A reformed pro life pastor laid out multiple ways the SC justices' attention could be bought, and directly reported how Alito shared an incoming ruling with influential conservatives over dinner. Yet when the court suffers arguably the worst document breach in my lifetime, we get a weak, after the fact report addendum saying "oh yeah, I remember now, I asked the justices and no leads were generated." Or there's the time Brett Kavanuagh showed up to a christmas party being put on by multiple ethically dubious conservatives and at least one guy who is still technically under investigation for underage sex trafficking. With how little the conservative justices give a fuck about appearances, it's very obvious they're completely above any accountability. And you can see that echoed in their increasingly insane rulings.

And that's not even getting into the open corruption of how the justices all get paid doing speeches for lobbying orgs and other professional groups, a problem that's especially been an issue with Thomas and Scalia, and now Alito. How many European vacations alone have been paid for by right wing lobbying orgs?

jungleroomx

Dark_Side wrote: »

jungleroomx wrote: »

Stabbity Style wrote: »

jungleroomx wrote: »

So if I don't want to suffer any laws and become openly corrupt, just become a judge. Neat.

Pretty much, yeah. Well, ideally get up to federal level somehow. Once you're a federal judge, you're basically in no matter how corrupt you are.

Let's hope they pass even more laws making their ability to be corrupt confidential.

I'm not even sure they need to. Ginni Thomas tried to overthrow the US government, but it didn't stop Clarence Thomas from ruling on a case indirectly involving her. A reformed pro life pastor laid out multiple ways the SC justices' attention could be bought, and directly reported how Alito shared an incoming ruling with influential conservatives over dinner. Yet when the court suffers arguably the worst document breach in my lifetime, we get a weak, after the fact report addendum saying "oh yeah, I remember now, I asked the justices and no leads were generated." Or there's the time Brett Kavanuagh showed up to a christmas party being put on by multiple ethically dubious conservatives and at least one guy who is still technically under investigation for underage sex trafficking. With how little the conservative justices give a fuck about appearances, it's very obvious they're completely above any accountability. And you can see that echoed in their increasingly insane rulings.

And that's not even getting into the open corruption of how the justices all get paid doing speeches for lobbying orgs and other professional groups, a problem that's especially been an issue with Thomas and Scalia, and now Alito. How many European vacations alone have been paid for by right wing lobbying orgs?

I meant for the non-SCOUTS federal judges that could still conceivably have some kind of accountability, which is directly opposed to what our judiciary apparently wants.

Our current SCOTUS is firmly above the law and above any and all consequences. I mean shit a dozen kids get killed in a school shooting and nothing happens, but one judge is mildly annoyed during his $1000 steak dinner and we get comprehensive reform.

AngelHedgie

jungleroomx wrote: »

Dark_Side wrote: »

jungleroomx wrote: »

Stabbity Style wrote: »

jungleroomx wrote: »

So if I don't want to suffer any laws and become openly corrupt, just become a judge. Neat.

Pretty much, yeah. Well, ideally get up to federal level somehow. Once you're a federal judge, you're basically in no matter how corrupt you are.

Let's hope they pass even more laws making their ability to be corrupt confidential.

I'm not even sure they need to. Ginni Thomas tried to overthrow the US government, but it didn't stop Clarence Thomas from ruling on a case indirectly involving her. A reformed pro life pastor laid out multiple ways the SC justices' attention could be bought, and directly reported how Alito shared an incoming ruling with influential conservatives over dinner. Yet when the court suffers arguably the worst document breach in my lifetime, we get a weak, after the fact report addendum saying "oh yeah, I remember now, I asked the justices and no leads were generated." Or there's the time Brett Kavanuagh showed up to a christmas party being put on by multiple ethically dubious conservatives and at least one guy who is still technically under investigation for underage sex trafficking. With how little the conservative justices give a fuck about appearances, it's very obvious they're completely above any accountability. And you can see that echoed in their increasingly insane rulings.

And that's not even getting into the open corruption of how the justices all get paid doing speeches for lobbying orgs and other professional groups, a problem that's especially been an issue with Thomas and Scalia, and now Alito. How many European vacations alone have been paid for by right wing lobbying orgs?

I meant for the non-SCOUTS federal judges that could still conceivably have some kind of accountability, which is directly opposed to what our judiciary apparently wants.

Our current SCOTUS is firmly above the law and above any and all consequences. I mean shit a dozen kids get killed in a school shooting and nothing happens, but one judge is mildly annoyed during his $1000 steak dinner and we get comprehensive reform.

The folks at LGM made a good point:

But really, at this point who cares anyway? As much as I like Lithwick’s work in general, I have to point out that her traditionally reverential attitude toward the SCOTUS — an attitude or at least a pose shared by elite lawyers throughout the system, from academia through the bar itself — has always been a big part of the problem here.

These aren’t priests of the American civic religion — they’re ordinary government bureaucrats, insulated from all ordinary bureaucratic responsibility by our ridiculous system, which treats Supreme Court justices as some sort of mystical atavism, the Oracles of the Rule of Law, as opposed to what they are, which is nothing but a highly specialized and extraordinarily pretentious species of politician.

The sooner all the pseudo-religious malarkey surrounding them gets demolished, the better.

AngelHedgie

So, there was a survey of conservative legal scholars on what Supreme Court decisions were The Worst:



That list says it all, doesn't it?

DarkPrimus

If I took a poll and got those results, I simply would not make the poll's existence public knowledge.

DevoutlyApathetic

At least Dread Scott and Plessy are on there?

I will read no answers about what they think they should have said instead.

AngelHedgie

DarkPrimus wrote: »

If I took a poll and got those results, I simply would not make the poll's existence public knowledge.

That's because you actually have a sense of shame.

Goumindong

.

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

At least Dread Scott and Plessy are on there?

I will read no answers about what they think they should have said instead.

Yes but not for the reasons they should be.

AngelHedgie

Goumindong wrote: »

.

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

At least Dread Scott and Plessy are on there?

I will read no answers about what they think they should have said instead.

Yes but not for the reasons they should be.

Yeah, Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu are there purely as virtue signaling.

Polaritie

AngelHedgie wrote: »

Goumindong wrote: »

.

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

At least Dread Scott and Plessy are on there?

I will read no answers about what they think they should have said instead.

Yes but not for the reasons they should be.

Yeah, Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu are there purely as virtue signaling.

Korematsu at 9 is pretty telling, I think. The opinion that said it was okay for the federal government to run concentration camps during WWII.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

moniker

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

At least Dread Scott and Plessy are on there?

I will read no answers about what they think they should have said instead.

Plessy being behind Roe, and it's not even close.

Krieghund

I only know what some of those cases were about, but the ones I do know about seem pretty in line with conservative thought.

Stabbity Style

AngelHedgie wrote: »

Goumindong wrote: »

.

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

At least Dread Scott and Plessy are on there?

I will read no answers about what they think they should have said instead.

Yes but not for the reasons they should be.

Yeah, Dred Scott, Plessy, and Korematsu are there purely as virtue signaling.

Honestly almost surprised they didn't put Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka on there.

silence1186

I'm only familiar with most of those decisions because I've been reading this thread for years. Thanks for spreading knowledge, Penny Arcade forums!

Dark_Side

People continue to find more and more questionable behavior and grift surrounding the Court's investigation into the leak.

Michael Chertoff, who served under President George W. Bush and now runs a security risk management firm, had provided services to the Supreme Court before he was tasked with independently reviewing the leak investigation, which ultimately did not find who the leaker was, CNN reported.

The Supreme Court privately paid at least around $1 million to the Chertoff Group for security assessments related to the justices' safety, involving reviews of their homes and months-long consultations, according to CNN. The firm also assessed COVID-19 practices at the court, CNN reported.

Of course none of this was disclosed when Chertoff reviewed and rubber stamped the report. It's also possible that his security group was actually providing legitimate services to the court and if they had disclosed it from the beginning, this probably would have been a non-story. But they didn't, and now we get to wonder what that 1 million was actually used for, beyond a guarantee he'd play ball and sign off.

moniker

Dark_Side wrote: »

People continue to find more and more questionable behavior and grift surrounding the Court's investigation into the leak.

Michael Chertoff, who served under President George W. Bush and now runs a security risk management firm, had provided services to the Supreme Court before he was tasked with independently reviewing the leak investigation, which ultimately did not find who the leaker was, CNN reported.

The Supreme Court privately paid at least around $1 million to the Chertoff Group for security assessments related to the justices' safety, involving reviews of their homes and months-long consultations, according to CNN. The firm also assessed COVID-19 practices at the court, CNN reported.

Of course none of this was disclosed when Chertoff reviewed and rubber stamped the report. It's also possible that his security group was actually providing legitimate services to the court and if they had disclosed it from the beginning, this probably would have been a non-story. But they didn't, and now we get to wonder what that 1 million was actually used for, beyond a guarantee he'd play ball and sign off.

Are you questioning the integrity and commitment to high ethical standards of *checks notes* George W Bush's Secretary of DHS and coauthor of the PATRIOT Act?

Dark_Side

Another day, another justice's wife making bank off their connection to the court.

A Boston attorney and former colleague of U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts' wife, Jane, has filed a complaint with Congress and the Justice Department alleging her work as a legal recruiter poses a conflict of interest at the Supreme Court.

While she quit her job as a law partner when her husband was confirmed as chief justice in 2005, Jane Roberts made millions of dollars in commissions helping recruit for firms regularly involved in court business, according to the former colleague, Kendal Price, as reported by the Times.

While this claim is pretty tame, and being made by an ex colleague with a possible axe to grind, it's another example of how even spouses of the court can, and are effectively feeding off its power.

daveNYC

Dark_Side wrote: »

Another day, another justice's wife making bank off their connection to the court.

A Boston attorney and former colleague of U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts' wife, Jane, has filed a complaint with Congress and the Justice Department alleging her work as a legal recruiter poses a conflict of interest at the Supreme Court.

While she quit her job as a law partner when her husband was confirmed as chief justice in 2005, Jane Roberts made millions of dollars in commissions helping recruit for firms regularly involved in court business, according to the former colleague, Kendal Price, as reported by the Times.

While this claim is pretty tame, and being made by an ex colleague with a possible axe to grind, it's another example of how even spouses of the court can, and are effectively feeding off its power.

Firms that are hoping for John Roberts' support give Jane Roberts cash money in the form of commissions. Sounds about right.

Doc

The insane Bruen decision that (basically) only issues contemporary to the writing of the constitution may be considered when restricting firearm ownership continues to have off-the-rails stupid ripples:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/people-under-domestic-violence-orders-can-own-guns-us-appeals-court-rules-2023-02-02/

In Thursday's decision, Circuit Judge Cory Wilson said banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms "embodies salutory policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society."

But the judge, appointed by Donald Trump, said Bruen made such a consideration irrelevant, and that from a historical perspective the ban was "an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted."

More or less: "domestic violence wasn't considered a crime back then, so when it comes to gun control, aren't allowed to consider it as one now."

moniker

Doc wrote: »

The insane Bruen decision that (basically) only issues contemporary to the writing of the constitution may be considered when restricting firearm ownership continues to have off-the-rails stupid ripples:

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/people-under-domestic-violence-orders-can-own-guns-us-appeals-court-rules-2023-02-02/

In Thursday's decision, Circuit Judge Cory Wilson said banning people under domestic violence restraining orders from owning firearms "embodies salutory policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society."

But the judge, appointed by Donald Trump, said Bruen made such a consideration irrelevant, and that from a historical perspective the ban was "an outlier that our ancestors would never have accepted."

More or less: "domestic violence wasn't considered a crime back then, so when it comes to gun control, aren't allowed to consider it as one now."

Jealous Deva

Pretty sure it was also common practice in colonial days for cities to ban carrying guns in public and in some cases ban them entirely from downtown areas?

Commander Zoom

Jealous Deva wrote: »

Pretty sure it was also common practice in colonial days for cities to ban carrying guns in public and in some cases ban them entirely from downtown areas?

So was keeping people as property.
Just saying. No reason.

Phoenix-D

Jealous Deva wrote: »

Pretty sure it was also common practice in colonial days for cities to ban carrying guns in public and in some cases ban them entirely from downtown areas?

Oh it was. Not surprisingly Alito's view of history is entirely made up.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr

..bearing arms occurs within the context of the debate overthe militia.2 Even if one includes the Revolutionary Era and thefederalist era, references to anything that might be construed as aconstitutional right of individual self-defense are exceedingly rare, andalmost always turn out to be statements from dissenting constitutionaltexts that expressed the point of view of the losers in the greatconstitutional struggles of the eighteenth century...
..For example, James Madison's proposal for those who violated Virginia'sgame laws captured the important distinction between civilian andmilitary gun use. In a bill to prevent the killing of deer, Madisonproposed that a person who "bear a gun out of his inclosed ground,unless whilst performing military duty" would face penalties offorfeiting their unlawfully killed deer, paying a fine, and being "boundto their good behaviour."..

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a40129655/gun-regulation-history-united-states/

For example, in 1786, the City of Boston had what can only be called a “safe storage” law; it was prohibited for any citizen in Boston to keep a firearm in a private dwelling, and all firearms had to be stored unloaded. In the 1700s, English common law prohibited the carrying of concealed firearms within the city of London. This prohibition made it over to the American colonies and became so solidly entrenched here that it dominated the gun laws of the 1800s.

shryke

Phoenix-D wrote: »

Jealous Deva wrote: »

Pretty sure it was also common practice in colonial days for cities to ban carrying guns in public and in some cases ban them entirely from downtown areas?

Oh it was. Not surprisingly Alito's view of history is entirely made up.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr

..bearing arms occurs within the context of the debate overthe militia.2 Even if one includes the Revolutionary Era and thefederalist era, references to anything that might be construed as aconstitutional right of individual self-defense are exceedingly rare, andalmost always turn out to be statements from dissenting constitutionaltexts that expressed the point of view of the losers in the greatconstitutional struggles of the eighteenth century...
..For example, James Madison's proposal for those who violated Virginia'sgame laws captured the important distinction between civilian andmilitary gun use. In a bill to prevent the killing of deer, Madisonproposed that a person who "bear a gun out of his inclosed ground,unless whilst performing military duty" would face penalties offorfeiting their unlawfully killed deer, paying a fine, and being "boundto their good behaviour."..

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a40129655/gun-regulation-history-united-states/

For example, in 1786, the City of Boston had what can only be called a “safe storage” law; it was prohibited for any citizen in Boston to keep a firearm in a private dwelling, and all firearms had to be stored unloaded. In the 1700s, English common law prohibited the carrying of concealed firearms within the city of London. This prohibition made it over to the American colonies and became so solidly entrenched here that it dominated the gun laws of the 1800s.

I think it was Ezra Klein I heard commenting on how bullshit "originalism" is by saying (paraphrased) "If we actually cared what the Founders or people of that time were thinking, we'd have staffed the SCTOUS with history majors, not lawyers".

Dark_Side

We're also talking about flintlock and black powder rifles where a trained military rifleman would be lucky to fire 3 to 4 rounds a minute. Unlike today where, for example, the young man that shot up that 4th of july parade managed to empty two entire mags before the crowd even realized what was happening.

Originalism has, and always will be a smug canard foisted on the populous by unscrupulous conservative jurists.

Fencingsax

This is SCWI, but there is a primary for one of the justices in Wisconsin on the 21st. A conservative Justice is retiring, and this would tip the court. Instead of pretending they are objective, every single justice candidate is going full partisan, from issues such as gerrymandering (which is obviously huge in Wisconsin) to their 1849 abortion law. Just fyi, it is more a general election with an automatic runoff of the top two candidates.

Fencingsax

As an update, with approximately half of the votr counted, it looks like Janet Protasiewicz is leading with more vote than the conservative judges combined, and the other judge is getting about 8%, which would put Protasiewicz over 50%

Martini_Philosopher

"Qualified Immunity" remains the reigning champion. The USSCotUS denied cert to Anthony Novak's appeal, leaving in place a 6th Circuit court ruling. That ruling said that the police didn't know it was illegal for arresting someone exercising their right to create an obvious parody. One might look at this and wonder why any common sense wasn't applied. Such is the law.

This isn't a complete surprise, but is nonetheless a disappointment.

Man in the Mists

And the Calvinball continues.

Polaritie

Pfft. Anyone who's paid any attention knows there's nothing qualified about it. The hacks on this court think the pigs are above the law and they're not even trying to hide it.

Dark_Side

That ruling said that the police didn't know it was illegal for arresting someone exercising their right to create an obvious parody. One might look at this and wonder why any common sense wasn't applied

Really it sounds like they knew it was legal speech, but drummed up a cheater law about "disrupting operations" to use to their advantage. But then the 6th had to go and make it extra crazy:

the officers reasonably believed they were acting within the law" even if his Facebook page was obviously a parody. That's because there was no court precedent saying it's a violation of the Constitution to be arrested in retaliation for satirical remarks when the officers have probable cause, the court said

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Dark_Side

Yeah, to me the scariest part about this ruling is that it just gave shit-ass states (Florida/Texas) carte blanch to draft the same law and mete out retribution to anyone who talks bad about a police department. They threw this guy in jail for 4 days to fuck with him, which in a lot of cities is now becoming a death sentence. It's blatant abuse of power and unconstitutional, but this is exactly how the SC wants it.

CaptainPeacock

Ah, the old Air Bud tactic. Solid move...

SeñorAmor

Dark_Side wrote: »

That ruling said that the police didn't know it was illegal for arresting someone exercising their right to create an obvious parody. One might look at this and wonder why any common sense wasn't applied

How come it's ok for the law enforcement folks to not know about the laws but it's the greatest sin ever for us normies not to?

DevoutlyApathetic

SeñorAmor wrote: »

Dark_Side wrote: »

That ruling said that the police didn't know it was illegal for arresting someone exercising their right to create an obvious parody. One might look at this and wonder why any common sense wasn't applied

How come it's ok for the law enforcement folks to not know about the laws but it's the greatest sin ever for us normies not to?

Oh see, cops are heroes who we don't expect to put themselves in any risk if they could just shoot somebody instead so we obviously can't expect them to have special legal knowledge like...who they can arrest?

Tarantio

Dark_Side wrote: »

Yeah, to me the scariest part about this ruling is that it just gave shit-ass states (Florida/Texas) carte blanch to draft the same law and mete out retribution to anyone who talks bad about a police department. They threw this guy in jail for 4 days to fuck with him, which in a lot of cities is now becoming a death sentence. It's blatant abuse of power and unconstitutional, but this is exactly how the SC wants it.

The thing is, they don't actually need a law.

There's no ruling that the guy with the satirical Facebook page broke any law.

Instead, there's a ruling protecting the police from consequences for arresting someone who had broken no law.

So there's no need to pass a law. Pick a law that's on the books, lie about whoever you want breaking it, and arrest them. Make sure to do it on the last day before a long weekend, so they can be unjustly held for longer. There will be no consequences, as the Republicans will protect you from them.