4 ms·

> all the complaints that are made today against the current Court could be made against past justices A strong claim requiring strong evidence. Where's the ev

> all the complaints that are made today against the current Court could be made against past justices A strong claim requiring strong evidence. Where's the evidence that any past justice took 38 trips worth millions of dollars from multiple billionaires with business before the court, and then tried to cover them up? > It's just someone whining that they didn't like the rulings Attributing motive, and falsely. It's not about the rulings. It's about the impropriety of accepting gifts that any other federal employee including lower-court judges would not be allowed to, and trying to hide the fact that those gifts were received. We can't read minds. We can't prove for certain that the gifts affected rulings, but there are reasons that such rules exist for many other people both in government and elsewhere. Even the worst president in history, whoever you think that is, behaved more ethically.

elmerfud 3y ago
Ruth Bader Ginsburg did this as well. Again I didn't see any influence in how she would rule based upon the cases before the court during her time. Just as I don't see it now. It's actually very easy to have evidence if gifts affected rulings. Are the rulings that they made inconsistent with their past rulings? Would that be absolute proof, no but it would be strong evidence. We don't see that not with past justices who have done the same thing and not with the current justices. Instead we see them rule incredibly consistently. I understand that there is a very vocal half of the country that doesn't like the conservative balance of the supreme Court currently. There was a vocal half of the country that didn't like the liberal balance of the supreme Court in the past. The problem is this veiled call for scrutiny as an excuse to neuter the powers of the supreme Court by Congress is something completely new.
- notacoward 3y ago
  > Ruth Bader Ginsburg did this as well. 38 trips to luxury resorts, worth millions of dollars? No. You have no evidence of that. And she disclosed the trips that she did take. She didn't hide them or lie about them. They didn't remain secret until someone interviewed the pilots and hotel employees etc. who saw her coming and going. You're making a false equivalence. > Are the rulings that they made inconsistent with their past rulings? Many of the recent rulings have indeed been inconsistent with the majority's stated judicial philosophies, such as originalism, textualism, or respect for precedent. As you say that's not airtight evidence, but it's far more suggestive than anything we saw in the last few courts. Roberts is running a clown show. > The problem is this veiled call for scrutiny as an excuse Again you make this claim about others' motives with no evidence. Is the idea of people genuinely caring about judicial integrity so alien to you? Is that the "conservative" (actually very radical) agenda you come here to fulminate about?
- jmye 3y ago
  > Ruth Bader Ginsburg did this as well. I can only assume you read the prior post asking for strong evidence. Did you not bother because you couldn’t find any and thought outlandish statements were somehow more sufficient the second time you made them? Do you have any evidence at all, or is this just blind partisan desire to pretend that everybody’s equally bad always so nothing matters? > The problem is this veiled call for scrutiny as an excuse to neuter the powers of the supreme Court by Congress is something completely new. Neuter their powers by… requiring accountability and some vague semblance of ethics from the least ethical justice to sit on the court in the last few decades? God forbid.

elmerfud 3y ago

Ruth Bader Ginsburg did this as well. Again I didn't see any influence in how she would rule based upon the cases before the court during her time. Just as I don't see it now. It's actually very easy to have evidence if gifts affected rulings. Are the rulings that they made inconsistent with their past rulings? Would that be absolute proof, no but it would be strong evidence. We don't see that not with past justices who have done the same thing and not with the current justices. Instead we see them rule incredibly consistently. I understand that there is a very vocal half of the country that doesn't like the conservative balance of the supreme Court currently. There was a vocal half of the country that didn't like the liberal balance of the supreme Court in the past. The problem is this veiled call for scrutiny as an excuse to neuter the powers of the supreme Court by Congress is something completely new.

notacoward 3y ago
> Ruth Bader Ginsburg did this as well. 38 trips to luxury resorts, worth millions of dollars? No. You have no evidence of that. And she disclosed the trips that she did take. She didn't hide them or lie about them. They didn't remain secret until someone interviewed the pilots and hotel employees etc. who saw her coming and going. You're making a false equivalence. > Are the rulings that they made inconsistent with their past rulings? Many of the recent rulings have indeed been inconsistent with the majority's stated judicial philosophies, such as originalism, textualism, or respect for precedent. As you say that's not airtight evidence, but it's far more suggestive than anything we saw in the last few courts. Roberts is running a clown show. > The problem is this veiled call for scrutiny as an excuse Again you make this claim about others' motives with no evidence. Is the idea of people genuinely caring about judicial integrity so alien to you? Is that the "conservative" (actually very radical) agenda you come here to fulminate about?
jmye 3y ago
> Ruth Bader Ginsburg did this as well. I can only assume you read the prior post asking for strong evidence. Did you not bother because you couldn’t find any and thought outlandish statements were somehow more sufficient the second time you made them? Do you have any evidence at all, or is this just blind partisan desire to pretend that everybody’s equally bad always so nothing matters? > The problem is this veiled call for scrutiny as an excuse to neuter the powers of the supreme Court by Congress is something completely new. Neuter their powers by… requiring accountability and some vague semblance of ethics from the least ethical justice to sit on the court in the last few decades? God forbid.