4 ms·

Is the comment directed at me, or to the author of the article? I believe the SCOTUS justices are unique because they answer to no disciplinary authority. The

Is the comment directed at me, or to the author of the article? I believe the SCOTUS justices are unique because they answer to no disciplinary authority. They are expected to behave ethically, but they encounter no consequences (besides public protest) when they do not. There has been much coverage of late about Justice Thomas's relationship with Harlan Crow, but virtually no coverage of even more egregious behavior by other SCOTUS justices (past and present). My reason for posting this was not to disparage any of the justices, but to point out the media bias here.

nobodyandproud 4y ago
Great. An adversarial system is what roots out corruption. So when you say media bias, the question is which media? It’s why the Wall Street Journal is the necessary and respected foil to the NYTimes; whereas FOX has proven to be tabloid quality at best.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> I believe the SCOTUS justices are unique because they answer to no disciplinary authority. Congress is an actual thing that exists, so no. They may answer to a disciplinary authority that is systematically dysfunctional in regard to its oversight responsibilities in a way which grants them effectively unlimited license, but it is not accurate that they answer to no disciplinary authority. > There has been much coverage of late about Justice Thomas’s relationship with Harlan Crow, but virtually no coverage of even more egregious behavior by other SCOTUS justices (past and present). While the coverage of Justice Thomas’s flagrantly corrupt relationship with Crowe has occasioned additional attention to dubious actions by other Supreme Court justices (notably, both Gorsuch and Sotomayor of current justices, the latter frequently deployed as whataboutism by conservatives to criticism of Thomas), none of them by current justices has been clearly “even more egregious” than Thomas – both Gorsuch and Sotomayor disclosed their payments, all three did not recuse themselves from cases where they had the financial relationship with the party [Thomas and Sotomayor] or counsel [Gorsuch], Gorsuch involved the most cases, Thomas involved the most value given to the Justice, much of it with not even a plausible case of exchange for value (outside of corruption), and without disclosure, and from a donor who in addition to having direct business before the Court is a partisan/ideological activist on a wide array of the most significant issues that have been before the Court.
belter 4y ago
Sorry. I just realized my comment might be misunderstood. It's neither addressed to you or the author of the article. It's really a question directed to US political system. I meant to say, from so many Judges in the US, it seems many that end up in SCOTUS are of subpar quality.

nobodyandproud 4y ago

Great. An adversarial system is what roots out corruption. So when you say media bias, the question is which media? It’s why the Wall Street Journal is the necessary and respected foil to the NYTimes; whereas FOX has proven to be tabloid quality at best.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> I believe the SCOTUS justices are unique because they answer to no disciplinary authority. Congress is an actual thing that exists, so no. They may answer to a disciplinary authority that is systematically dysfunctional in regard to its oversight responsibilities in a way which grants them effectively unlimited license, but it is not accurate that they answer to no disciplinary authority. > There has been much coverage of late about Justice Thomas’s relationship with Harlan Crow, but virtually no coverage of even more egregious behavior by other SCOTUS justices (past and present). While the coverage of Justice Thomas’s flagrantly corrupt relationship with Crowe has occasioned additional attention to dubious actions by other Supreme Court justices (notably, both Gorsuch and Sotomayor of current justices, the latter frequently deployed as whataboutism by conservatives to criticism of Thomas), none of them by current justices has been clearly “even more egregious” than Thomas – both Gorsuch and Sotomayor disclosed their payments, all three did not recuse themselves from cases where they had the financial relationship with the party [Thomas and Sotomayor] or counsel [Gorsuch], Gorsuch involved the most cases, Thomas involved the most value given to the Justice, much of it with not even a plausible case of exchange for value (outside of corruption), and without disclosure, and from a donor who in addition to having direct business before the Court is a partisan/ideological activist on a wide array of the most significant issues that have been before the Court.

belter 4y ago

Sorry. I just realized my comment might be misunderstood. It's neither addressed to you or the author of the article. It's really a question directed to US political system. I meant to say, from so many Judges in the US, it seems many that end up in SCOTUS are of subpar quality.