4 ms·
The fact that all 9 justices pretty much agreed that this is a non-issue speaks volumes. Justices are above the law and play by different rules. A regular govt
by adoxyz 3y ago
The fact that all 9 justices pretty much agreed that this is a non-issue speaks volumes. Justices are above the law and play by different rules.
A regular govt worker receiving a $25 gift card has to report it or could be fired, but once you get to Supreme Court, you can do whatever you want.
- leoh 3y agoGotta get a case like this to the Supreme Court I guess
- falcolas 3y agoDefinitely feels like we're in a "who watches the watchers" situation here. I know that theoretically Congress can make laws to set limits on the SC, but the SC can also overrule those laws as long as they can come up with a reasonable justification. And with 100+ years of precedence (much of which is contradictory or doesn't mesh well with modern morals or the current condition of the US (high technology, fewer physical workers, globalization, etc)), they have a lot of potential justifications at their fingertips.
- kelseyfrog 3y agoAdditionally federal judges, including supreme court justices, are theoretically subject to the check of impeachment and conviction by the Senate. However, in practice, only one supreme court justice[1] has ever been impeached, and even then was acquitted. Historically, federal judges have a 50% conviction rate following impeachment. The proximal causes of such a low impeachment rate, and whether they sufficiently address the current behavior of our supreme court justices is obviously up for debate. 1. https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/samuel-chase-impeached
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoThere is, in theory, a much greater check in the form of constitutional amendments. It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional. Of course, you'd be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Of course, you’d be hard pressed to get 66% of America to agree on anything. “66% of America” isn’t actually relevant (that is neither necessary nor necessarily sufficient to ratify, or even submit for ratification, a Constitutional Amendment).
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoAh, oops, mixed up the proposal requirements and the ratification requirements. 2/3 to propose. 3/4 to ratify.
- dragonwriter 3y ago2/3 of each House of Congress isn’t 2/3 of America, though.
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoIt can also be 2/3 of states by convention, which, while isn't 2/3 of the population, 2/3 of states is compellingly 2/3 "of America".
- falcolas 3y ago> It would be fundamentally impossible to argue an ammendment to be unconstitutional. You're not wrong. That said, it's the SC's job to interpret the wording and the intent of the constitution, including all its amendments. It's how one group of SC justices created the Roe vs. Wade decision, and another group of SC justices overturned it, both using the same constitution and precedent.
- JohnFen 3y ago> the SC can also overrule those laws as long as they can come up with a reasonable justification. They don't even have to be reasonable justifications, judging by the justifications they've used for other rulings recently.
- sidewndr46 3y agoIsn't this normal throughout history? Laws do not apply to the ruling class themselves.
- afpx 3y agoWhile we probably can’t completely fix it, shouldn’t we still try?
- csours 3y ago> The fact that all 9 justices pretty much agreed that this is a non-issue speaks volumes. Justices are above the law and play by different rules. Citation? There are examples of various judges accepting trips and gifts, but some of them REALLY stand out in the number and value. I agree that it appears that none of them have really rocked the boat with external pressure, but the court has been a very insular institution. We don't know how much they've talked about it amongst themselves.
- generalizations 3y agoWell, we may not have picked up on the extent of the trips/gifts and other kickbacks. Could be they're all benefiting a ton, and we just don't know it (yet...?).
- HardlyCurious 3y agoIt's in the article from this thread. Their is also a quote from the late RBG comparing efforts to stop this to some sort of stalinism. Either way, what is absolutely important is that any enforcement is absolute and not selective / at the discretion of a prosecutor. There is no unbiased person when it comes to potentially shifting the balance of power of the SCOTUS. We can't only be shining a spotlight on justices from one party.
- jakelazaroff 3y agoAt times like these, it's useful to remember that the most common Supreme Court ruling is 9–0: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/23/trey-wingo/despite-popular-misconception-supreme-court-9-0-ru/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jun/23/trey-wingo...
- burkaman 3y agoThis actually isn't true anymore: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/as-unanimity-declines-conservative-majoritys-power-runs-deeper-than-the-blockbuster-cases/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/07/as-unanimity-declines-con...
- jakelazaroff 3y agoOof, that is… disturbing.
- JohnFen 3y agoThis. The SC turns out to be just as rotten as the rest of them. I remember when the standard was that judges should avoid the appearance of corruption, not just avoid the reality of it.
- lliamander 3y ago> A regular govt worker receiving a $25 gift card has to report it or could be fired, but once you get to Supreme Court, you can do whatever you want. For the regular government worker, does it matter who gives you that card? In the private sector, it's an issue if the card comes from a vendor, customer, etc, but if you just get a gift from some unaffiliated party there no need to report it to your employer.
- pixl97 3y agoIf a gift card could influence future work decisions I personally would report it as the company does not need much to relieve you from duty if there is even a hint of impropriety
- lliamander 3y agoMaybe at the point where your company is considering doing business with them and you have a say in the matter, but otherwise it's your own business. I've never seen an HR policy that required disclosures without at least some relationship to the work you are actually doing.
- toast0 3y agoI've had to help my spouse fill out a California Form 700; if you need to fill out those annually, you're telling people not to give you gifts at all, nor would you ever consider investing outside of diversified mutual funds, because the paperwork burden is too high. In theory, roughly equal gifts between friends is fine, but easier to just not accept any gifts. But Federal level elected officials get a pass. And apparently appointed (supreme) court judges, too.