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.
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.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted 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.
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.
Founders didn’t give them nearly as much power as they have now. They gave it to themselves in Marbury v Madison. The government was never never to have political parties. Washington even warned about that in his farewell address
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 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.
He admitted wrongdoing when he feigned ignorance that he was supposed to disclose his lavish gifts for the last few decades.
This is just more info coming out about what he always hid from the American people regarding the huge under-the-table gifts he’s been receiving from billionaires all these years.
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.
It’s possible that Trump will get a guilty verdict in one of his felony trials between Super Tuesday in March and the national convention in July. It’s likely that Trump will have the election sewn up by Super Tuesday. The trial news will be a shitshow in any case.
They made the Leopards Ate My Face final boss when they refused to go after Trump for his multiple criminal conspiracies. They were so afraid of losing in 2020 that they went all in to support him, because they ceded the voters to him, because at the end of the day they have no policies to sell. It’s just the fear, and Trump does that better than all of them put together.
So honestly, I don’t think they can win with Trump. There are states (and seats) where a shift of 5% of Rs and something similar in Is will flip the state, and Dems have been on a gotv speed run with the abortion laws on the table. I don’t think the poll models are going to take into account just how weird this election will be.
On the other hand, they have fucking DeSantis. DeSantis couldn’t defeat anyone. Still, some of those DeSantis voters are never going to support Trump, so even if DeSantis drops out, he won’t get 100% of the DeSantis (or other) supporters.
There’s an awful lot of “if” in your statements. We need to be concerned with reality as it exists right now, not how it may exist at some unknown point in the future if a specific set of events play out as we hope.
My point is that you’re not truly understanding reality as it is right now. My argument is that the blackpill perspective is an unnecessarily pessimistic outlook without a real theory for change, which is effectively nihilistic and helps fascism.
I’m not the original commenter. I was just contributing that there’s a lot of speculation in your statement. Yes, that could happen, but can you really blame people for seeming pessimistic when they’ve seen open corruption reported for decades now with no consequences or meaningful changes?
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.
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 hasn’t he Justice Department looked into this? I am sure if things were flipped around, a Republican-led DoJ would have started a well publicized investigation into this if there was a Left-wing justice taking lavish gifts. But as usual, Democrats seem to be willing to let this bullshit slide instead of blowing it up into a big deal.
I’ve yet to hear of a explicit law that is being broken with respect to SCOTUS. Obviously in our legal system we have rules and laws that stop people from doing the stuff he is doing but because its the legal system every case is a special case. DoJ will jump the moment a very specific law is broken but honestly I don’t know what it would be as of the moment other than being obviously in the pocket of wealthy people and being a scumbag.
This isn’t about breaking laws, it’s about breaching ethical standards. Federal judges all agree to a code of ethics as a condition of being on the bench. SCOTUS justices weirdly do NOT agree to a code of ethics. The controversy is that we are learning about a ton of stuff that is plainly unethical under the standards federal judges agree to, but SCOTUS is technically untouchable. Democrats are advancing legislation to force them to agree to ethical standards, but SCOTUS is arguing that Congress doesn’t have the power to force them. They are also unwilling to voluntarily agree to a standard of ethics for obvious reasons.
Their code is useless unless it can be enforced by one of the other branches. Judges all agreeing to not be shit while crossing their fingers behind their back does us no good.
It doesn’t matter if they agree with it or not, it is the duty of our elected officials to remove them when they accept bribes or engaging bad behavior:
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America lays it out, allowing for the removal of "the President, Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States […] on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Article III, Section 1 gives us a little more insight:
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
The problem is that our elected officials are engaged in the same bribery as the SCOTUS, therefore they are ignoring their duty to remove judges accepting bribery. If the entire system is ignoring ethics and the needs of the people, then the entire system must be rebuilt. Thomas Jefferson and other forefathers considered it the duty of the people to rebuild the government as needed. I don’t think they envisioned the behemoth the government would become, and the radical divide between the people and their government.
I have zero doubt that SOME law has been broken. But just as importantly, it isn’t the specific law, but rather bringing up this mess to the public. Make a big stink about it. Announce it to the press, tell the world that he is under investigation and force him to sweat. Is it a tax-related law that was broken? Or something else dealing with corruption? That’s for the government to decide, but our cowardly Attorney General isn’t even willing to say anything about this.
Except we dont want to live in a world where the government can just bully you with no law. I am sure there is something specific, just haven’t heard the DoJ actually state what it is. Until then they do fucking with citizens, as sleezy as they may be, leads to a shitty government.
“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.”
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.
Same. Born and raised in South East Asia, always saw the US as “the good guys” since young, mostly because US-centric media, especially Hollywood, always portrayed America as so. I even attended graduate school in Pennsylvania. Now, I can’t help but feel it’s becoming a clown show and the nation is collapsing within itself.
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.
I mean, I don’t think there’s any doubt about which way any conservative justice is expected to rule on most cases, and especially not the big ones. Nothing needs to be said.
Add comment