5 ms·
US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling
- jmclnx 2y agoSo the US Supreme Court is corrupt, well why not join the rest of the US Gov. in getting "gifts and tips".
- bastawhiz 2y agoClarence Thomas did exactly this.
- bdcravens 2y agoSamuel Alito as well. https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishing-trip-paul-singer-scotus-supreme-court https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishi...
- ImJamal 2y agoWhich ones haven't? RGB, Sotomayor, Breyer, Jackson have all done the same things.
- bdcravens 2y agoPlus Gorsuch, Roberts, etc. In most cases though, it's important to see the purpose of, and who paid for, such trips. Harvard paying for someone to travel as a visiting professor is in a different category than a private billionaire sponsoring a fishing trip.
- pessimizer 2y agoI have always maintained, while he was sitting and afterwards, that Scalia's deep corruption was one of the only things protecting US civil liberties. His desire not to be examined informed his decisions on investigative overreach. The liberal justices sitting now are leaders in corruption, so it's not exclusive to people whose decisions we don't like.
- llamaimperative 2y agoEvidence please?
- mrlonglong 2y agoAre their rulings not evidence enough?
- llamaimperative 2y agoTo prove "liberal justices are leaders in corruption?" Uhhh no. Not only should GP provide evidence that liberal justices are routinely receiving bribes, but that, as "leaders", they are dwarf the ones Clarence Thomas took and didn't report.
- bdangubic 2y agoThe liberal justices sitting now are leaders in corruption wow this is the craziest thing written here in years. unless clarence turned liberal and we missed the news? or kavanaugh paid her own debts with monopoly money. you are too funny (if you are trying to be …)
- dennis_jeeves2 2y ago[flagged]
- cdot2 2y agoSo they don't want the public to have details regarding their security processes. Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court?
- morkalork 2y agoIt's just a side channel signal that they are self-aware of making unpopular decisions?
- cdot2 2y agoOr that they're aware that there are threats against their safety.
- Retric 2y agoAnd they they’re aware Or implies it’s not both. The Supreme Court has long made unpopular opinions, but it’s recently lost the impression of impartiality. These things are inherently linked.
- pessimizer 2y agoWho exactly wouldn't be aware of that, no matter which way the decision went?
- inetknght 2y ago> Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court? How can the public verify that security is sufficiently without holes if the public doesn't have access to details? How can the public verify that their taxes, which paid for that security, are well-spent? While I don't personally believe all security details should be publicly available, I do think the details should be made available after-the-fact via FOIA. Eg, "what were security details on suchandsuch date", with say a 3-month minimum past-time limit. Of course, it can be difficult to learn from problems 3 months ago, but that difficulty must be balanced with "oh crap there's a problem we have to quietly fix before someone's hurt"
- ck2 2y agoAlito was on the phone with Trump just one day before he ruled on his case. That is never ever supposed to happen and probably never has before. It doesn't get any more corrupt than that.
- CoastalCoder 2y agoBush v. Gore might be close.
- ImJamal 2y agoJustices cannot talk to the president?
- brookst 2y agoJudges in general cannot talk to parties with business before their court. Fortunately / unfortunately, our Supreme Court has no ethical standards, so there’s no prohibition here like there would be for a lower court. BTW I think you meant “President elect”, who is still a private citizen.
- ImJamal 2y agoI would love to see what they talked about, do you have the transcript?
- brookst 2y agoNope. And that's why we used to have these norms -- to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It used to be taken quite seriously by judges, even Supreme Court justices. Abe Fortas famously resigned from the court after it was learned he had accepted a $20k/year retainer from a financier. It seems so quaint compared to today's open corruption.
- gigatexal 2y agoWhat makes me livid is a number of these Trump appointees lied in to congress when they said "Roe was settled law" (It's a precedent, ... "settled" here meaning "why change it, it's the law of the land") only to waste no time in unsettling it. The Trump / MAGA / right-wing takeover of America is a thing I never would have wished even on my enemies.
- noman-land 2y agoThis was a clear rhetorical tactic, the type a lawyer would employ. Saying Roe is settled law is a factual observation about the world, not a statement of personal opinion. When you look at it that way, it wasn't a lie, but an observation that is no longer true.
- brookst 2y agoWhen you’re splitting hairs over whether an intentionally misleading response is technically a lie, it’s a good sign the whole system has lost whatever good faith it once had.
- llamaimperative 2y agoDoesn’t have to be “the whole system.” You can pin blame directly on the people doing it.
- RajT88 2y agoThe system everyone sort of assumed would punish bad behavior, it turns out did not at all punish bad behavior. It is both down to the system and the individuals.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- scintill76 2y agoI don’t think this captures it all. The “observation” was also about whether they would change the world. They strongly implied they wouldn’t, then did anyway.
- neilv 2y agoThis article is almost entirely about plausibly reasonable security measures in response to credible threats/risks. If members of SCOTUS are showing up to billionaire eyes-wide-shut parties in the forest, where bribes are paired with underage-goat kompromat, that's a problem, and you'd want transparency for that. But, sadly, due to our current cultural problems in public discourse and reasoning, much/most of the populace is being riled up by social media propaganda/shilling/mobs/habit, some people milk movements of public figures as fuel for that, and occasionally some mentally ill person acts on the noise and information. Some security is appropriate. But, so long as we're being understanding about the importance of privacy for some privileged few, in the interests of equality... > That bill passed into law the next year and outlawed the publication of personally identifying information about federal and supreme court justices online by data brokers and [...] How about also protect the rest of us from that surveillance/stalking industry?
- CoastalCoder 2y agoI wonder if they'll hear any challenges to that law.
- voidfunc 2y agoThe SCOTUS has outlived its usefulness. The next step is for States to actively begin disregarding its decisions and forcing the Federal government to enforce its unpopular mandates against States which chose to not comply which will be deeply unpopular.
- brookst 2y agoYou mean like Arkansas’ handling of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling?
- pessimizer 2y ago> The SCOTUS has outlived its usefulness. What about their refusal to explain their security measures convinced you of this? > The next step is for States to actively begin disregarding its decisions and forcing the Federal government to enforce its unpopular mandates against States which choose to not comply which will be deeply unpopular. Is that the next step, or has it happened before, most notably during desegregation? Was forcing the states to desegregate right, even if it was unpopular?
- AzzyHN 2y agoI mean, yeah. They knew they were about to make a ruling that was unpopular with the masses. The Supreme Court only exists because of America's love affair with British common law. It's a relic of a bygone era, like the drinking age being 21.
- olliej 2y agoWhy is this flagged?