The SCOTUS Chronicles

[Nanny]

Apparently Alito was not present for decision rendering yesterday.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Graham argued that former President Trump “changed the court” during his administration, provoking the ire of Democrats.

“They’re squealing like stuck pigs because the Supreme Court is no longer a political body. It is actually looking at the Constitution and making constitutionally sound decisions versus political decisions. That’s the problem liberals have with the court,” he said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4735...cs-reform/

Republican dishonesty on display. The only reason they're against ethics reform is because Alito and Thomas are so provably unethical.

[A. Secular Human]

^ I'm sure he wouldn't mind his payers doing a little deficit spending, as money in the bank.

The corrupt justices are already in the pocket. Any justice who wants more money, or lately finds conscience, will suddenly find leaks showing past buyoffs in the press undermining him. The buyers don't need to pay any more. No need for barons  to borrow  money when they can twist an arm or three.

Lifetime tenure for justices was a good idea a couple of hundred years ago, to guard against executive dismissal. Nowadays, it serves to protect these same judges against bribery charges. Perhaps one justice should have to stand re-election every federal election cycle? Perhaps there should be an independent standing Inspector General and staff charged with investigating this corruption?

Comments pro and con invited.

Requires a change to the Constitution.  Ain't gonna happen.

[A. Secular Human]

It's my assertion that six of the nine should be a sub-group, called SCROTUS.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Requires a change to the Constitution.  Ain't gonna happen.

Not now, no. Once this country gets through this partisan spam -- assuming it does -- it needs to be first on the agenda.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The corrupt justices are already in the pocket. Any justice who wants more money, or lately finds conscience, will suddenly find leaks showing past buyoffs in the press undermining him. The buyers don't need to pay any more. No need for barons  to borrow  money when they can twist an arm or three.

Lifetime tenure for justices was a good idea a couple of hundred years ago, to guard against executive dismissal. Nowadays, it serves to protect these same judges against bribery charges. Perhaps one justice should have to stand re-election every federal election cycle? Perhaps there should be an independent standing Inspector General and staff charged with investigating this corruption?

Comments pro and con invited.

Requires a change to the Constitution.  Ain't gonna happen.

Just need to enforce the ‘shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour’ bit. No need to change the Constitution, just use it. Taking undeclared gifts (‘bribes’) is not ‘good Behaviour’.

Boru

[Fake Messiah]

Supreme Court Nukes Hunter Biden Laptop Conspiracy in Brutal Ruling

The Supreme Court issued a surprising decision on Wednesday, finding that complaints that the Biden administration had forced censorship on conservative social media users were unfounded. In its 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court laid a death blow in particular to the conspiracy theory that the FBI forced social media companies to suppress stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

https://newrepublic.com/post/183140/supr...cial-media

[Mister Agenda]

On the other hand, it's now apparently okay for lawmakers to accept tips. It's not a bribe if you've done the favor prior to getting paid.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supre...ibery-law/

[Thumpalumpacus]

Apparently it's okay to participate in an insurrection too, despite the clear laws against it:

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that an obstruction law used to charge scores of Jan. 6 rioters and former President Trump was improperly applied, spelling trouble for the Justice Department’s far-reaching prosecution of the Capitol attack.

The justices sided 6-3, not along ideological lines, for Joseph Fischer, a former police officer accused of storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, who challenged one of several counts he faces: obstruction of an official proceeding.

The law, Section 1512©(2), makes it a crime to “corruptly” obstruct, impede or interfere with official inquiries and investigations by Congress and carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.

It’s been used to prosecute rioters who interrupted Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election results, but Fischer — and scores of other rioters — claim the Justice Department retooled a charge that once criminalized document shredding to encompass the conduct of those who stormed the Capitol that day.

“It would be peculiar to conclude that in closing the Enron gap, Congress actually hid away in the second part of the third subsection of Section 1512 a catchall provision that reaches far beyond the document shredding and similar scenarios that prompted the legislation in the first place,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

“The better conclusion is that subsection ©(2) was designed by Congress to capture other forms of evidence and other means of impairing its integrity or availability beyond those Congress specified in ©(1),” he continued.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the high court’s conservative majority, while conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined liberals Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in the dissent.

Barrett wrote that her fellow justices “failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches” in their decision and questioned how Fischer’s case did not fit squarely into the parameters of the charge. She accused the court of completing “textual backflips” to find “some way – any way” – to narrow the subsection’s reach.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...on-charge/

[Nanny]

Scrotus takes months to non-cert Trump immunity appeal, sends it back to lower courts:

"The Supreme Court capped its term by determining core presidential powers are immune from criminal prosecution, a win for former President Trump that returns his federal case involving efforts to overturn the 2020 election back to a lower court to determine whether his actions leading up to Jan. 6 merit the protection.

In a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution — a decision that stopped just short of granting the total immunity sought by Trump, but that nonetheless aids the former president by likely delaying that trial beyond the November election. "

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...eme-court/

The scrotes kicked the can down the road, just as dear leader wanted.