4 ms·

Is it really unhinged when more and more corrupt, undocumented, gifts keep getting revealed?

by TylerE 2y ago

nonethewiser 2y ago
It's partisan. It's no coincidence that the side disagreeing with all the EFFECTS of the decisions (not necessarily even the legal interpretations - those tend not to get addressed) is the one calling it corrupt.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  You said it was unhinged but now you're pleading it down to merely partisan?
- Slick6906 2y ago
  Please, go ahead and explain how this is not corruption: https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishi.... I’m a huge mental gymnastics enthusiast.
  - morkalork 2y ago
    Well you see, it's just a gratuity.
  - Ajedi32 2y ago
    > In early July 2008 Ask yourself this: why are you only hearing about this 13 years later? This wasn't a big deal when the allegedly problematic ruling on the hedge fund came down, only when the ruling on Roe v. Wade did. I won't comment on the factual accuracy of the claims in the article. I haven't investigated them thoroughly, so I don't have an informed opinion on them. But if you want a rebuttal, maybe read the response from Alito linked to in the article? https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers...
    - psb217 2y ago
      If the corruption can be revealed, it exists. This is true whether or not the decision to reveal it is biased.
    - burkaman 2y ago
      Because "Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures." It was extremely difficult for anyone to find out about this. Parts of Alito's response are extremely difficult to believe. > Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that “[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,” Alito intentionally cuts out the rest of this sentence. The law says "except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported". Obviously a private jet flight does not qualify as any of these categories. Why did he ignore that part of the law? > My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On a multi-day fishing trip with a very small group, where you were personally hosted by Paul Singer, you only made small talk? You flew on his private jet, and were photographed multiple times posing with him in front of a tiny boat or plane that only held a handful of people, so you must have spent many hours with him and only a couple other people. It is completely unbelievable that anybody in this situation with a sitting supreme court justice would only make small talk. Why did he invite you, if he didn't care about your position as a justice and you barely knew each other? > when I was invited shortly before the event Who invited you? > Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me. Alito does not address the third option of not going. What was this event and why was it important he attend? He doesn't say.
    - vundercind 2y ago
      Is your assertion that no reporters disliked Alito enough—and/or, that none were career-advancement-motivated enough—to bother reporting on this in 2008, and that's why it was only reported recently? It seems to me the more likely explanation is that nobody who might be inclined to report on it, knew about it then.
- Centigonal 2y ago
  I think there are three components here: - There is a partisan component when democrats criticize the effect of cases like Dobbs, Janus, and Trump v. USA. This definitely exists. - There is definitely a legal interpretation component. I heard some good analysis on legal interpretation on NPR around the Chevron deference when Loper v. Raimondo happened. They had on law professors, federal lawyers, and even one of the lawyers who argued the original Chevron case. There was a lot of content educating people on the history of Chevron deference, what it means, and what the new ruling might mean for regulators in the future. I've also seen a lot of discussion poking holes in the unitary executive theory (on the left) and justifying it (on the right). You sometimes have to dig to find this - long discussions on legal theory don't exactly make for compelling media. - Finally, there is a "corruption on the SCOTUS" component. I would argue that the timing here is partisan, but the material is not. The conflicts of interest documented are factual, and the calls to adopt a code of ethics should have been a nonpartisan issue. Personally, I believe that the GOP learned the wrong lesson from the Nixon impeachment and Bork nomination and has adopted a more doveish stance on balancing political power versus corruption within their party, and the partisan lean of the SCOTUS scandals is a consequence of this.
- vundercind 2y ago
  I'll be upset with liberal justices, too, if evidence turns up that any of them are being bribed on a grand scale by billionaires. That this is regarded as partisan by anyone is why we're screwed. The revelations about Thomas should have had all of Washington after his head. Nope, it's "partisan" so zero action taken and normal people are even confused enough about it that here we are, having this exchange. If that doesn't scare you, it should.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    Plenty of evidence has turned up already? This is just a small smattering of the potential bribes the liberals justices took. > Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed taking more trips than any other justice in 2018, totaling 14. She visited Tel Aviv, Israel where she was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Genesis Prize Foundation. Shortly following the award ceremony, she disclosed being provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn. Companies spawned by Kahn have had had business before the Supreme Court before. The high court handed Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case. > Justice Stephen Breyer disclosed a dozen trips, three of which were supported by the wealthy Chicago-based Pritzker family. Breyer took two trips related to his position on the Pritzker Prize for Architecture jury, which honors architects each year. Breyer has served on the Pritzker jury since 2011 and became chair in 2018. He also disclosed taking a one-week trip to Ireland and Spain as part of the “Pritzker Fly-Around Program,” which paid for his transportation, lodging and meals. Breyer has taken 219 reimbursed trips since 2004, more than any other sitting justice. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/scotus-justices-rack-up-trips/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/scotus-justices-rac...
    - TylerE 2y ago
      Key word: Disclosed The Republican members weren't disclosing anything, including on their required reporting, until they got caught, years after the fact. There's also tons of just super corrupt stuff, like Harlan Crow buying Clarence Thomas's mothers home for him for above market rate, and letting her continue to live there literally rent free.

Is it really unhinged when more and more corrupt, undocumented, gifts keep getting revealed?

by TylerE 2y ago

Is it really unhinged when more and more corrupt, undocumented, gifts keep getting revealed?

It's partisan. It's no coincidence that the side disagreeing with all the EFFECTS of the decisions (not necessarily even the legal interpretations - those tend not to get addressed) is the one calling it corrupt.

giraffe_lady 2y ago
You said it was unhinged but now you're pleading it down to merely partisan?
Slick6906 2y ago
Please, go ahead and explain how this is not corruption: https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishi.... I’m a huge mental gymnastics enthusiast.
- morkalork 2y ago
  Well you see, it's just a gratuity.
- Ajedi32 2y ago
  > In early July 2008 Ask yourself this: why are you only hearing about this 13 years later? This wasn't a big deal when the allegedly problematic ruling on the hedge fund came down, only when the ruling on Roe v. Wade did. I won't comment on the factual accuracy of the claims in the article. I haven't investigated them thoroughly, so I don't have an informed opinion on them. But if you want a rebuttal, maybe read the response from Alito linked to in the article? https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers-alito-gifts-disclosure-alaska-singer-23b51eda https://www.wsj.com/articles/propublica-misleads-its-readers...
  - psb217 2y ago
    If the corruption can be revealed, it exists. This is true whether or not the decision to reveal it is biased.
  - burkaman 2y ago
    Because "Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures." It was extremely difficult for anyone to find out about this. Parts of Alito's response are extremely difficult to believe. > Until a few months ago, the instructions for completing a Financial Disclosure Report told judges that “[p]ersonal hospitality need not be reported,” Alito intentionally cuts out the rest of this sentence. The law says "except that any food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality of an individual need not be reported". Obviously a private jet flight does not qualify as any of these categories. Why did he ignore that part of the law? > My recollection is that I have spoken to Mr. Singer on no more than a handful of occasions, all of which (with the exception of small talk during a fishing trip 15 years ago) consisted of brief and casual comments at events attended by large groups. On a multi-day fishing trip with a very small group, where you were personally hosted by Paul Singer, you only made small talk? You flew on his private jet, and were photographed multiple times posing with him in front of a tiny boat or plane that only held a handful of people, so you must have spent many hours with him and only a couple other people. It is completely unbelievable that anybody in this situation with a sitting supreme court justice would only make small talk. Why did he invite you, if he didn't care about your position as a justice and you barely knew each other? > when I was invited shortly before the event Who invited you? > Had I taken commercial flights, that would have imposed a substantial cost and inconvenience on the deputy U.S. Marshals who would have been required for security reasons to assist me. Alito does not address the third option of not going. What was this event and why was it important he attend? He doesn't say.
  - vundercind 2y ago
    Is your assertion that no reporters disliked Alito enough—and/or, that none were career-advancement-motivated enough—to bother reporting on this in 2008, and that's why it was only reported recently? It seems to me the more likely explanation is that nobody who might be inclined to report on it, knew about it then.
Centigonal 2y ago
I think there are three components here: - There is a partisan component when democrats criticize the effect of cases like Dobbs, Janus, and Trump v. USA. This definitely exists. - There is definitely a legal interpretation component. I heard some good analysis on legal interpretation on NPR around the Chevron deference when Loper v. Raimondo happened. They had on law professors, federal lawyers, and even one of the lawyers who argued the original Chevron case. There was a lot of content educating people on the history of Chevron deference, what it means, and what the new ruling might mean for regulators in the future. I've also seen a lot of discussion poking holes in the unitary executive theory (on the left) and justifying it (on the right). You sometimes have to dig to find this - long discussions on legal theory don't exactly make for compelling media. - Finally, there is a "corruption on the SCOTUS" component. I would argue that the timing here is partisan, but the material is not. The conflicts of interest documented are factual, and the calls to adopt a code of ethics should have been a nonpartisan issue. Personally, I believe that the GOP learned the wrong lesson from the Nixon impeachment and Bork nomination and has adopted a more doveish stance on balancing political power versus corruption within their party, and the partisan lean of the SCOTUS scandals is a consequence of this.
vundercind 2y ago
I'll be upset with liberal justices, too, if evidence turns up that any of them are being bribed on a grand scale by billionaires. That this is regarded as partisan by anyone is why we're screwed. The revelations about Thomas should have had all of Washington after his head. Nope, it's "partisan" so zero action taken and normal people are even confused enough about it that here we are, having this exchange. If that doesn't scare you, it should.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  Plenty of evidence has turned up already? This is just a small smattering of the potential bribes the liberals justices took. > Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg disclosed taking more trips than any other justice in 2018, totaling 14. She visited Tel Aviv, Israel where she was awarded a lifetime achievement award by the Genesis Prize Foundation. Shortly following the award ceremony, she disclosed being provided transportation, food and lodging as a tourist and guest of billionaire Israeli businessman Morris Kahn. Companies spawned by Kahn have had had business before the Supreme Court before. The high court handed Amdocs Limited a win in November 2017 when it declined to take up a patent-related case. > Justice Stephen Breyer disclosed a dozen trips, three of which were supported by the wealthy Chicago-based Pritzker family. Breyer took two trips related to his position on the Pritzker Prize for Architecture jury, which honors architects each year. Breyer has served on the Pritzker jury since 2011 and became chair in 2018. He also disclosed taking a one-week trip to Ireland and Spain as part of the “Pritzker Fly-Around Program,” which paid for his transportation, lodging and meals. Breyer has taken 219 reimbursed trips since 2004, more than any other sitting justice. https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/scotus-justices-rack-up-trips/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/06/scotus-justices-rac...
  - TylerE 2y ago
    Key word: Disclosed The Republican members weren't disclosing anything, including on their required reporting, until they got caught, years after the fact. There's also tons of just super corrupt stuff, like Harlan Crow buying Clarence Thomas's mothers home for him for above market rate, and letting her continue to live there literally rent free.