4 ms·

I have to give an unpopular opinion here. I strongly respect the SCOTUS justices and the methods of their qualification to the bench as well as their lack of

I have to give an unpopular opinion here. I strongly respect the SCOTUS justices and the methods of their qualification to the bench as well as their lack of term limits and seniority as a long-term component of stability within the federal government. There are few other institutions that provide the same level of rigor and thoughtfulness to our government, and have the credibility and respect because they do not swing with the wind every year. Part of that capability includes that they not be swayed by whatever hot topic of the moment, including this. In general, I agree with the line, "if a Supreme Court justice can be bought for so little, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined". Not to say that no justice has ever done anything unquestionable. But I find that the muckraking (like the Daily Beast article quoted by another comment) only seemed to garner interest in being investigated because of the number of controversial opinions lately.[0] And people on the left were happy with the way things were as long as the Court ruled in their favor. Which is a weak position to find yourself having taken. Any time an argument about the structure of the Court comes up, I ask, did you feel that way when it was ruling in favor of you? If not, then what kind of institution are you asking to be created? Beware. If you thought the Court needed to be packed, would you adopt the same position if it were to be packed with conservatives? If you call for the removal of Clarence Thomas, would you be happy to have seen RBG removed for some similar questionable travel she engaged in? You want term limits on the current justices -- would you have been in favor of that for the justice that was giving you "yes" votes on cases? Or is it just because the Court's rulings aren't going your way lately? We have far too much in society today where people want to change the rules just because the last decision didn't go their way. Democracy, I think, is actually about losing gracefully and without having a revolution, not that you always get your way. The Court is deciding topics that are intrinsically hard to make "objectively fair" decisions about. This Court chooses to return us to previous positions that were also defensible (or saying that interpretations were incorrect) and according to certain legal principles, re-adhering to what the Constitution says to do. The Court rules on things that are intrinsically open for interpretation. And it is a reflection of our other parts of government being dysfunctional that we for example, cannot amend the Constitution if we think that standards need to change. No court will save us on an issue where 50% of people disagree on it, no matter how strongly you may feel that your side is right. The Court is the last place that you should try to make change happen. I am not in favor of suddenly finding / proposing all sorts of new rules just because a ruling didn't go your way. [0] See this story for why you should read more of the detail if you wish to have a position that's more informed than "this is so corrupt": https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billionaire-who-bought-justice-thomas-mothers-house/9efa40a6-8a56-4836-ae31-717e824c9833 https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billi...

zerocrates 3y ago
It's, barring unforeseen circumstances, a very durable conservative supermajority on the court now. So I think you're going to increasingly see liberals think packing the court is desirable, even knowing it invites counter-packing on the other side, as an alternative to what they've got now. This of course assuming they ever have enough control of Congress to actually do such a thing. Earlier in history a Court at odds with the other branches basically "blinked" when confronted with the threat of packing, but it's hard to see that happening now. It's obvious that Roberts is concerned with the image of the institution to the degree that it's affected the outcomes of cases before that were likely to be seen as overtly partisan, but there's now a conservative majority even with his exclusion. Some of the court's outsized power and importance has happened because of Congress's unwillingness and/or inability to act, leading both parties to look to the court for "wins." I think fixing that (itself a tall order) could turn down the temperature a little, but the Supreme Court itself holds a lot of control over whether that can even work, as they're effectively the arbiter of the scope of their own power.
jfengel 3y ago
You're correct: justices' opinions do not swing in they wind. They are cemented at the moment they were nominated, and remain the same for decades. I don't believe Thomas was bought by bribery. I don't think any reasonable observer does. Rather, I think that he was friends with a very wealthy person, who appreciates that Thomas is ideologically inclined to give him what he wants. Nor is that illegal. The illegal part is failing to disclose it. Nobody can say why he failed to disclose it. He has no reason to be embarrassed by it. It's widely interpreted as contempt for the law -- an uncomfortable thing to believe about the highest court in the land. I know that a lot of lawyers (of all ideologies) have a lot of respect for the work of the Supreme Court. As a non-lawyer, my lack of respect should mean less than theirs. But when a decision comes down to ideology, they can be relied on to vote with their decades-old beliefs, and the entire charade of presenting a case seems unnecessary. The decision could have been written without pretending that they were actually deciding anything. As you day, democracy is about losing gracefully. But as of now, I'm practically guaranteed to lose for the rest of my life any time it comes down to an ideological issue. That's not corruption; it's the fact that there are at least five justices who I don't believe will even consider it. The fact that one of them doesn't consider a law relevant is an indicator that something is badly aligned, upsetting the balance under which I'm expected to be a good loser.

zerocrates 3y ago

It's, barring unforeseen circumstances, a very durable conservative supermajority on the court now. So I think you're going to increasingly see liberals think packing the court is desirable, even knowing it invites counter-packing on the other side, as an alternative to what they've got now. This of course assuming they ever have enough control of Congress to actually do such a thing. Earlier in history a Court at odds with the other branches basically "blinked" when confronted with the threat of packing, but it's hard to see that happening now. It's obvious that Roberts is concerned with the image of the institution to the degree that it's affected the outcomes of cases before that were likely to be seen as overtly partisan, but there's now a conservative majority even with his exclusion. Some of the court's outsized power and importance has happened because of Congress's unwillingness and/or inability to act, leading both parties to look to the court for "wins." I think fixing that (itself a tall order) could turn down the temperature a little, but the Supreme Court itself holds a lot of control over whether that can even work, as they're effectively the arbiter of the scope of their own power.

jfengel 3y ago

You're correct: justices' opinions do not swing in they wind. They are cemented at the moment they were nominated, and remain the same for decades. I don't believe Thomas was bought by bribery. I don't think any reasonable observer does. Rather, I think that he was friends with a very wealthy person, who appreciates that Thomas is ideologically inclined to give him what he wants. Nor is that illegal. The illegal part is failing to disclose it. Nobody can say why he failed to disclose it. He has no reason to be embarrassed by it. It's widely interpreted as contempt for the law -- an uncomfortable thing to believe about the highest court in the land. I know that a lot of lawyers (of all ideologies) have a lot of respect for the work of the Supreme Court. As a non-lawyer, my lack of respect should mean less than theirs. But when a decision comes down to ideology, they can be relied on to vote with their decades-old beliefs, and the entire charade of presenting a case seems unnecessary. The decision could have been written without pretending that they were actually deciding anything. As you day, democracy is about losing gracefully. But as of now, I'm practically guaranteed to lose for the rest of my life any time it comes down to an ideological issue. That's not corruption; it's the fact that there are at least five justices who I don't believe will even consider it. The fact that one of them doesn't consider a law relevant is an indicator that something is badly aligned, upsetting the balance under which I'm expected to be a good loser.