4 ms·

US Supreme Court needs more scrutiny, not less

30 points by hhs 3y ago

elmerfud 3y ago
It's interesting that the complaint for scrutiny comes now when loud liberal voices are upset with current rulings. When the rulings favored the liberal agenda there was no calls for scrutiny everything was just fine. Anyone who said anything different was told it doesn't matter it's totally fine. Never mind the fact that all the complaints that are made today against the current Court could be made against past justices. The call for scrutiny seems to be about neutering one branch of government and less about any actual problem. Because if people and Congress really cared about corruption they would look to themselves first. Where are the calls for the scrutiny of all the Congressional members that just happened to magically sell off vast amounts of stocks right before the legislation was announced for the covid lockdowns that crashed the market. They didn't want any scrutiny then. What I never see in any of these articles about justices getting favors or gifts or this and that is any link that influenced the outcome of a case. You'd think that would be readily apparent because the opinions and views of these justices are known they've held them for decades. The rulings they make are very consistent to the point that scholars can predict the outcomes of nearly every case. So if them having friendships with powerful people and receiving gifts were influencing the outcomes of cases we would see inconsistent rulings happening. We don't see that at all. You can disagree with the ruling to strike down roe v Wade you can disagree with the bruin ruling. You can disagree with the ruling striking down the Tillman act but what you can't do is say that these rulings were inconsistent with the views and the history of the justices who made the rulings. Without pointing out inconsistencies in the rulings of the justices everything in this article is absolute garbage and useless. It's just someone whining that they didn't like the rulings not that scrutiny or ethics would have changed the ruling. Because the easiest thing to do is to shout down someone you can make no argument against. Because if there's corruption if there's an ethics violations that are influencing rulings that should be easy to point out but where is the evidence?
- clipsy 3y ago
  No one stopped you or anyone else from investigating liberal justices for ethics violations, nor is anyone currently stopping you.
  - elmerfud 3y ago
    I think you're missing my point I don't see a reason to investigate the justices. Because these gifts have been known about for a long time but there is never any evidence that they influence. Justices rule extremely consistent over the course of their career. Especially in the decade leading up to their service on the supreme Court. The entire point of ethics rules is because things can influence outcome. Those rules get made because there is evidence that at least for some people things influenced outcomes. You have a grand total of nine people at any given time that are in the same court for a long long time. In my entire life I have never seen any evidence that for supreme Court justices things influenced their ruling. The history of the justices predicts their current rulings and does it amazingly well. That is the counter evidence to say that these gifts are a problem to them. If they're not having an influence on their ruling they're not a problem. It may be something that we don't like because we might feel personally that it would influence us. But I find it hysterical that the people making the claims are the most influenced by gifts to change their votes.
    - colonelanguz 3y ago
      > these gifts have been known about for a long time No they haven't. That's why it's breaking news when they get discovered. > In my entire life I have never seen any evidence that for supreme Court justices things influenced their ruling. How would you possibly know what this looks like when, as you concede, there never have been meaningful investigations into the justices? > The history of the justices predicts their current rulings and does it amazingly well. No better than the history of their acceptance of lavish gifts from ideologically motivated rich people.
      - elmerfud 3y ago
warning26 3y ago
Really this should be a bipartisan issue. Lifetime appointments are a perfect fit for ethics violations.
- thrill 3y ago
  It already is a bipartisan "issue" - removal of a Justice is an impeachment process.
  - warning26 3y ago
    Sure, but that ignores how the process is actually working in practice. The number of successful Supreme Court impeachments (only 1, over the course of more than 100 years) should tell you that the system as-is isn’t working.
- rufus_foreman 3y ago
  Isn't it the exact opposite? If you need to get reelected every few years, you need some help. It would be easy to compromise. If you don't need to get reelected ever for the rest of your life, why would you compromise?
TheCaptain4815 3y ago
These attacks on the Supreme Court are a subtle way to overthrow a government you disagree with.
- cafard 3y ago
  Are they? A couple of years ago, I had to remind some disgruntled friends that a very popular president, at the height of his popularity, put out the idea of expanding the court, and failed entirely. You could look it up. Thomas Jefferson, who had solid majorities, tried and failed to remove the obnoxious Federalist Samuel Chase. How about "This pissing in the wind is a subtle way to change a weather pattern you dislike?"
  - TheCaptain4815 3y ago
    Yes they are. Look at how FDR threatened the Supreme Court during his presidency to get his way. The courts have always been attacked by the left to push their political agenda.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  The overthrowing of the the Supreme Court is done. It's been years in the making https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/how-conservatives-won-the-battle-over-the-courts/564533/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/how-conser... and the attacks have been fueled by vast sums of money https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-scotus-elections-nonprofits-discrimination https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-scotus-electi...
- notacoward 3y ago
  That's a weird assumption - that the court, and only the court, represents the real government. It's like the "unitary executive" theory but for the court. Here's an idea: the US constitution defines three branches, none subservient to the others. If any were to take precedence, most people would point to the elected branches. In common parlance "the government" mostly refers to the executive, sometimes the legislature, never the judiciary. Supporting justices who are overstepping their bounds by legislating from the bench (and quite likely doing so at donors' behest) is a not-so-subtle way to overthrow a government.

30 points by hhs 3y ago

It's interesting that the complaint for scrutiny comes now when loud liberal voices are upset with current rulings. When the rulings favored the liberal agenda there was no calls for scrutiny everything was just fine. Anyone who said anything different was told it doesn't matter it's totally fine. Never mind the fact that all the complaints that are made today against the current Court could be made against past justices. The call for scrutiny seems to be about neutering one branch of government and less about any actual problem. Because if people and Congress really cared about corruption they would look to themselves first. Where are the calls for the scrutiny of all the Congressional members that just happened to magically sell off vast amounts of stocks right before the legislation was announced for the covid lockdowns that crashed the market. They didn't want any scrutiny then. What I never see in any of these articles about justices getting favors or gifts or this and that is any link that influenced the outcome of a case. You'd think that would be readily apparent because the opinions and views of these justices are known they've held them for decades. The rulings they make are very consistent to the point that scholars can predict the outcomes of nearly every case. So if them having friendships with powerful people and receiving gifts were influencing the outcomes of cases we would see inconsistent rulings happening. We don't see that at all. You can disagree with the ruling to strike down roe v Wade you can disagree with the bruin ruling. You can disagree with the ruling striking down the Tillman act but what you can't do is say that these rulings were inconsistent with the views and the history of the justices who made the rulings. Without pointing out inconsistencies in the rulings of the justices everything in this article is absolute garbage and useless. It's just someone whining that they didn't like the rulings not that scrutiny or ethics would have changed the ruling. Because the easiest thing to do is to shout down someone you can make no argument against. Because if there's corruption if there's an ethics violations that are influencing rulings that should be easy to point out but where is the evidence?

clipsy 3y ago
No one stopped you or anyone else from investigating liberal justices for ethics violations, nor is anyone currently stopping you.
- elmerfud 3y ago
  I think you're missing my point I don't see a reason to investigate the justices. Because these gifts have been known about for a long time but there is never any evidence that they influence. Justices rule extremely consistent over the course of their career. Especially in the decade leading up to their service on the supreme Court. The entire point of ethics rules is because things can influence outcome. Those rules get made because there is evidence that at least for some people things influenced outcomes. You have a grand total of nine people at any given time that are in the same court for a long long time. In my entire life I have never seen any evidence that for supreme Court justices things influenced their ruling. The history of the justices predicts their current rulings and does it amazingly well. That is the counter evidence to say that these gifts are a problem to them. If they're not having an influence on their ruling they're not a problem. It may be something that we don't like because we might feel personally that it would influence us. But I find it hysterical that the people making the claims are the most influenced by gifts to change their votes.
  - colonelanguz 3y ago
    > these gifts have been known about for a long time No they haven't. That's why it's breaking news when they get discovered. > In my entire life I have never seen any evidence that for supreme Court justices things influenced their ruling. How would you possibly know what this looks like when, as you concede, there never have been meaningful investigations into the justices? > The history of the justices predicts their current rulings and does it amazingly well. No better than the history of their acceptance of lavish gifts from ideologically motivated rich people.
    - elmerfud 3y ago

warning26 3y ago

Really this should be a bipartisan issue. Lifetime appointments are a perfect fit for ethics violations.

thrill 3y ago
It already is a bipartisan "issue" - removal of a Justice is an impeachment process.
- warning26 3y ago
  Sure, but that ignores how the process is actually working in practice. The number of successful Supreme Court impeachments (only 1, over the course of more than 100 years) should tell you that the system as-is isn’t working.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
Isn't it the exact opposite? If you need to get reelected every few years, you need some help. It would be easy to compromise. If you don't need to get reelected ever for the rest of your life, why would you compromise?

TheCaptain4815 3y ago

These attacks on the Supreme Court are a subtle way to overthrow a government you disagree with.

cafard 3y ago
Are they? A couple of years ago, I had to remind some disgruntled friends that a very popular president, at the height of his popularity, put out the idea of expanding the court, and failed entirely. You could look it up. Thomas Jefferson, who had solid majorities, tried and failed to remove the obnoxious Federalist Samuel Chase. How about "This pissing in the wind is a subtle way to change a weather pattern you dislike?"
- TheCaptain4815 3y ago
  Yes they are. Look at how FDR threatened the Supreme Court during his presidency to get his way. The courts have always been attacked by the left to push their political agenda.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
The overthrowing of the the Supreme Court is done. It's been years in the making https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/how-conservatives-won-the-battle-over-the-courts/564533/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/07/how-conser... and the attacks have been fueled by vast sums of money https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-scotus-elections-nonprofits-discrimination https://www.propublica.org/article/leonard-leo-scotus-electi...
notacoward 3y ago
That's a weird assumption - that the court, and only the court, represents the real government. It's like the "unitary executive" theory but for the court. Here's an idea: the US constitution defines three branches, none subservient to the others. If any were to take precedence, most people would point to the elected branches. In common parlance "the government" mostly refers to the executive, sometimes the legislature, never the judiciary. Supporting justices who are overstepping their bounds by legislating from the bench (and quite likely doing so at donors' behest) is a not-so-subtle way to overthrow a government.