The SCOTUS Chronicles

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Boru

[arewethereyet]

^I thought they were already sold out.

[Fireball]

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

[Thumpalumpacus]

^ 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.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Our Supremes have a mandatory retirement age of 70. Not the worst idea.

Boru

[Fireball]

^ 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.

My bold. Maybe that's what's going on? Maybe that's why Thomas is getting all this heat now.

Why not both re-election and an IG? It's interesting that the GOP wants to quash any attempt to legislate an ethical code for the SCOTUS. But not surprising, given their obvious lack of ethics.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's interesting that the GOP wants to quash any attempt to legislate an ethical code for the SCOTUS. But not surprising, given their obvious lack of ethics.

Agreed, it's rather revealing. We both know that had these justices been named Breyer, Sotomayor, or Brown-Jackson, the Republican in Congress would be having a shitfit and lining up to vote for a code of conduct.

If anyone needed any further evidence of how politicized the court has become -- by at least one party -- here it is. Who in their right mind would vote against transparency and ethical behavior? That's right: politicians protecting political appointees.

[Deesse23]

It's interesting that the GOP wants to quash any attempt to legislate an ethical code for the SCOTUS. But not surprising, given their obvious lack of ethics.

Agreed, it's rather revealing. We both know that had these justices been named Breyer, Sotomayor, or Brown-Jackson, the Republican in Congress would be having a shitfit and lining up to vote for a code of conduct.

...and here is maybe the answer you were looking for earlier:

No need to elect SCOTUS judges, or to appoint a "supervisor". The cause is corruption (of the judges) and the root cause is the Rep parts does not care anymore. It has become completely dysfunctional. Correct me if i am wrong: But with support of the Rep party, some judges could be impeached. Its the same for the position of the president and stuff like  immunity. As long as the Rep party is so fundamentally dishonest (oh, yea, Trump is immune, not so much for a Dem president, right?) and keeps its power, there is nothing you can do to stop the corruption of your political landscape.

You have a two party system, one party is completely corrupted and ca. 40% (your mileage may vary) of the electo supports this (for various reasons). You have a very profound and fundamental problem in your society, and unfortunately, just like Coca Cola in the 50s, its overflowing to here as can be seen by the AfD soon to be able to block various state parliaments and probably the Bundestag after the next election.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agreed, it's rather revealing. We both know that had these justices been named Breyer, Sotomayor, or Brown-Jackson, the Republican in Congress would be having a shitfit and lining up to vote for a code of conduct.

...and here is maybe the answer you were looking for earlier:

No need to elect SCOTUS judges, or to appoint a "supervisor". The cause is corruption (of the judges) and the root cause is the Rep parts does not care anymore. It has become completely dysfunctional. Correct me if i am wrong: But with support of the Rep party, some judges could be impeached. Its the same for the position of the president and stuff like  immunity. As long as the Rep party is so fundamentally dishonest (oh, yea, Trump is immune, not so much for a Dem president, right?) and keeps its power, there is nothing you can do to stop the corruption of your political landscape.

You have a two party system, one party is completely corrupted and ca. 40% (your mileage may vary) of the electo supports this (for various reasons). You have a very profound and fundamental problem in your society, and unfortunately, just like Coca Cola in the 50s, its overflowing to here as can be seen by the AfD soon to be able to block various state parliaments and probably the Bundestag after the next election.

Surrender has never been my cup of tea.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the Supreme Court’s leading conservatives, found himself standing alone when the court handed down a major gun decision Friday.

Thomas broke with his eight colleagues, who all voted to uphold a federal gun ban for people under domestic violence restraining orders, a decision that handed a win to the Biden administration and gun control groups.

It’s a striking change for Thomas, who authored the Supreme Court’s expanded Second Amendment test two years ago, known as Bruen, that was at the center of Friday’s case.

That test requires gun regulations to fit within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by seven of his colleagues, said Friday the domestic abuser gun ban could be compared to a tradition of disarming people who pose a credible safety threat.

“The question is whether the Government can strip the Second Amendment right of anyone subject to a protective order — even if he has never been accused or convicted of a crime. It cannot,” Thomas responded in his 32-page dissent, twice as long as the Roberts’s majority opinion.

“The Court and Government do not point to a single historical law revoking a citizen’s Second Amendment right based on possible interpersonal violence,” he continued, referring to the statute at issue, adding that he believed the government had not “borne its burden.”

[...]

A Texas man’s challenge of his conviction under the domestic violence gun law had forced the justices to consider the limits of their recent expansion and clarify the test for lower courts that have voiced confusion.

That man, Zackey Rahimi, was placed under a restraining order after he dragged his girlfriend, with whom he has a child, in a parking lot and attempted to shoot a witness. Rahimi later participated in a series of five shootings, court filings show, and was indicted on the gun charge after police searched his home and found a rifle and a pistol.

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-bat...ourt-guns/

I hate to break the news to Justice Thomas, but domestic violence is indeed a crime, and restraining orders aren't imposed without accusations, and in this case a conviction. Apparently, uppity wimmenfolk need shootin'.