4 ms·

I'd argue that several of the justices are politicians in black robes.

rootusrootus 7y ago
I expect a lot of people would agree with you. Though I'd bet about half would disagree on which justices were the politicians...
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  One of those halves has more evidence, though. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/ginni-thomas-trump-conservative-group/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/ginni-thomas-trump-conse... > Conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas is launching yet another project to wage war on multiple fronts of America’s most heated cultural and political debates. This time, however, her plan will include a project to “protect President Trump” using at least two new campaign-related political entities, according to a presentation obtained by The Intercept and Documented. > Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, unveiled the new venture in a closed meeting of GOP lawmakers, donors, and Christian-right leaders last month, seeming to make reference to the movement disarray and electoral losses suffered by conservatives in the Trump era — and the gains made by left-wing groups and politicians. https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-now-lobbyist-048812 https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-... > Now, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has recast herself yet again, this time as the head of a firm, Liberty Consulting, which boasts on its website using her “experience and connections” to help clients “with “governmental affairs efforts” and political donation strategies.
  - pstuart 7y ago
    This was one of the points I had in mind.
  - AuryGlenz 7y ago
    I’ll counterargue and say that the side that interprets the constitution as a “living document” instead of what’s actually written is by far more political in their rulings for that reason alone.
    - DSMan195276 7y ago
      > instead of what’s actually written Isn't the whole problem determining what is "actually written"? It seems kinda silly to me to argue "well obviously they meant X" when there's clearly debate on the subject.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Both sides of the debate treat it regularly as a living document, when convenient. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradicto...
- a_humean 7y ago
  Both groups are wrong, they are all politicians and pseudo senators of an upper parliamentary chamber. Its just another bizzare American political ritual of pretending to believe things about their politics that are plainly not true. Pretending that the supreme court and the entire state and federal court system isn't part of the party system despite all judges at all levels being public figures cheifly identified by their unoffical or offical party affiliation. There literately isn't a single issue of political importance that isn't actively subjected to review and amendment by America's highest court.
roenxi 7y ago
At the Federal level the median US politician sometimes has the power to glass countries and that power is typically exercised every so often. They actively work to redistribute and moderate the wealth and lives of the most materially prosperous country. The justices are socially aware but there is a big gap between them and the professional politicians. They take substantially less advantage of opportunities to foist their human foibles on others. They are politicians, but of the nose-out-of-joint variety where their peers tend to be limbs-strewn-over-an-area types. The difference is large enough that they don't really merit the same label. It'd be nice if the US kept them from getting more politically active. The best Supreme Court is a quiet and sleepy one.
- claudeganon 7y ago
  > The justices are socially aware but there is a big gap between them and the professional politicians Go read anything about Chief Justice Roberts history as a conservative activist and see if this really holds true.
  - pstuart 7y ago
    The impeachment trial showed that activism can occur by doing nothing.
    - wl 7y ago
      Would you characterize the Clinton impeachment trial in the same way? What do you believe the Chief Justice should have done but didn't in either or both trials?
      - pstuart 7y ago
        The Clinton trial was about lying about a blowjob. He did lie, and he was a sexual predator, but I fail to see how it had anything to do with his official conduct (it was poor personal conduct but that's a different story). Trump engaged in a shakedown of another country for personal gain (including blocking money that Congress had appropriated) and then engaged in a massive coverup. I'd consider that to be a collection of crimes. Roberts did not allow witnesses to be called, and did not allow the hearings to be recorded. The GOP refused to participate in the trial at all and declared before it started that they would not even consider a guilty vote.

I expect a lot of people would agree with you. Though I'd bet about half would disagree on which justices were the politicians...

ceejayoz 7y ago
One of those halves has more evidence, though. https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/ginni-thomas-trump-conservative-group/ https://theintercept.com/2019/06/04/ginni-thomas-trump-conse... > Conservative activist Virginia “Ginni” Thomas is launching yet another project to wage war on multiple fronts of America’s most heated cultural and political debates. This time, however, her plan will include a project to “protect President Trump” using at least two new campaign-related political entities, according to a presentation obtained by The Intercept and Documented. > Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, unveiled the new venture in a closed meeting of GOP lawmakers, donors, and Christian-right leaders last month, seeming to make reference to the movement disarray and electoral losses suffered by conservatives in the Trump era — and the gains made by left-wing groups and politicians. https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-now-lobbyist-048812 https://www.politico.com/story/2011/02/justice-thomass-wife-... > Now, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has recast herself yet again, this time as the head of a firm, Liberty Consulting, which boasts on its website using her “experience and connections” to help clients “with “governmental affairs efforts” and political donation strategies.
- pstuart 7y ago
  This was one of the points I had in mind.
- AuryGlenz 7y ago
  I’ll counterargue and say that the side that interprets the constitution as a “living document” instead of what’s actually written is by far more political in their rulings for that reason alone.
  - DSMan195276 7y ago
    > instead of what’s actually written Isn't the whole problem determining what is "actually written"? It seems kinda silly to me to argue "well obviously they meant X" when there's clearly debate on the subject.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Both sides of the debate treat it regularly as a living document, when convenient. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradicto...
a_humean 7y ago
Both groups are wrong, they are all politicians and pseudo senators of an upper parliamentary chamber. Its just another bizzare American political ritual of pretending to believe things about their politics that are plainly not true. Pretending that the supreme court and the entire state and federal court system isn't part of the party system despite all judges at all levels being public figures cheifly identified by their unoffical or offical party affiliation. There literately isn't a single issue of political importance that isn't actively subjected to review and amendment by America's highest court.

roenxi 7y ago

At the Federal level the median US politician sometimes has the power to glass countries and that power is typically exercised every so often. They actively work to redistribute and moderate the wealth and lives of the most materially prosperous country. The justices are socially aware but there is a big gap between them and the professional politicians. They take substantially less advantage of opportunities to foist their human foibles on others. They are politicians, but of the nose-out-of-joint variety where their peers tend to be limbs-strewn-over-an-area types. The difference is large enough that they don't really merit the same label. It'd be nice if the US kept them from getting more politically active. The best Supreme Court is a quiet and sleepy one.

claudeganon 7y ago
> The justices are socially aware but there is a big gap between them and the professional politicians Go read anything about Chief Justice Roberts history as a conservative activist and see if this really holds true.
- pstuart 7y ago
  The impeachment trial showed that activism can occur by doing nothing.
  - wl 7y ago
    Would you characterize the Clinton impeachment trial in the same way? What do you believe the Chief Justice should have done but didn't in either or both trials?
    - pstuart 7y ago
      The Clinton trial was about lying about a blowjob. He did lie, and he was a sexual predator, but I fail to see how it had anything to do with his official conduct (it was poor personal conduct but that's a different story). Trump engaged in a shakedown of another country for personal gain (including blocking money that Congress had appropriated) and then engaged in a massive coverup. I'd consider that to be a collection of crimes. Roberts did not allow witnesses to be called, and did not allow the hearings to be recorded. The GOP refused to participate in the trial at all and declared before it started that they would not even consider a guilty vote.