3 ms·

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 do

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.

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.