4 ms·

I find the idea that the current Roberts court would issue a ruling reducing corruption a laughable proposition. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas were part of the or

I find the idea that the current Roberts court would issue a ruling reducing corruption a laughable proposition. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas were part of the original majority in the Citizens United v. FEC decision, and I have a hard time believing more than one of Barrett, Kavanaugh, or Gorsuch would break ranks in a similar case. But perhaps more importantly, several justices on the court have also since been revealed to have accepted undisclosed gifts (i.e., bribes) for decades (Thomas being the largest offender). Worse, the justices failed to recuse themselves from cases involving those who'd provided said gifts. Even worse, once the story broke about the undisclosed gifts, the Roberts court rejected the idea of independent ethics review for the court's members, insisting it could continue to be trusted to police itself despite the revelations of its own corruption. The Roberts court is a very pro-corruption court.

akramachamarei 6mo ago
Do you have examples of cases where gift-receiving judges should have recused? I tried looking into Thomas (the biggest news story) and ProPublica is very outright that the gift giver (Harlan Crowe) has not been involved in a Supreme Court case since Thomas was on it. The issue people seem to be focusing on is disclosure, the conversation doesn't seem to be at recusal.
- cherry_tree 6mo ago
  The Supreme Court rules on things like the chevron doctrine which allows the executive agencies to implement and enforce regulations across all industries. Does Harlan crowe do business in one of “all” industries? There is of course the topic of the article, citizens united which gave Crowe the ability to massively influence politics. Cases in the Supreme Court affect everyone in the country because it defines or redefines the law with every decision. To even begin the train of thought that a billionaire could be unaffected by _all previous supreme court opinions_ is just strange.
  - akramachamarei 6mo ago
    > To even begin the train of thought that a billionaire could be unaffected by all previous supreme court opinions is just strange. Yeah, that is strange. I'm curious why you brought it up.
    - cherry_tree 6mo ago
      > the gift giver (Harlan Crowe) has not been involved in a Supreme Court case since Thomas was on it. You are the one who suggested Harlan Crowe has no interest in the outcomes of any Supreme Court cases and that him giving undisclosed gifts to the justices in the millions of dollars range couldn’t therefore justify the need for a recusal. Alternatively you could be honest and admit that the nature of these gifts being undisclosed coming from a person with inherent interest in almost every case is cause for major concern and probably ground for recusal from _every_ case. A Supreme Court justice should be extremely mindful of even the possible appearance or impression of unethical behavior as their unethical behavior serves to discredit the institution itself. Why do you feel the need to come here and defend this plainly unethical behavior from justice thomas?
      - akramachamarei 6mo ago
        I don't think it's plain. My motivation for commenting, generally, is that a lot of people seem to have weird impressions of SCOTUS. In this case, I really don't see cause for recusal, though I suppose it would've been preferable to disclose. (But I suspect I only feel obliged to admit that because of the fervor with which the press reported it, which seems to me somewhat politically motivated.) I'd be interested if there were an example of a case where Thomas took an opinion that was (a) at odds with his judicial style and (b) clearly and directly benefitted Harlan Crowe. The fall of Chevron deference is not to me one of those cases. I see it, plainly, as returning some powers back to the proper branch. You seem to be suggesting that no judges should receive gifts from at least any business leaders at all? And if they do that they should recuse. I think that's a rather extreme position. I don't think the minds of justices are so malleable.
someguydave 6mo ago
Orange man bad, republicans bad. Thanks for the info

akramachamarei 6mo ago

Do you have examples of cases where gift-receiving judges should have recused? I tried looking into Thomas (the biggest news story) and ProPublica is very outright that the gift giver (Harlan Crowe) has not been involved in a Supreme Court case since Thomas was on it. The issue people seem to be focusing on is disclosure, the conversation doesn't seem to be at recusal.

cherry_tree 6mo ago
The Supreme Court rules on things like the chevron doctrine which allows the executive agencies to implement and enforce regulations across all industries. Does Harlan crowe do business in one of “all” industries? There is of course the topic of the article, citizens united which gave Crowe the ability to massively influence politics. Cases in the Supreme Court affect everyone in the country because it defines or redefines the law with every decision. To even begin the train of thought that a billionaire could be unaffected by _all previous supreme court opinions_ is just strange.
- akramachamarei 6mo ago
  > To even begin the train of thought that a billionaire could be unaffected by all previous supreme court opinions is just strange. Yeah, that is strange. I'm curious why you brought it up.
  - cherry_tree 6mo ago
    > the gift giver (Harlan Crowe) has not been involved in a Supreme Court case since Thomas was on it. You are the one who suggested Harlan Crowe has no interest in the outcomes of any Supreme Court cases and that him giving undisclosed gifts to the justices in the millions of dollars range couldn’t therefore justify the need for a recusal. Alternatively you could be honest and admit that the nature of these gifts being undisclosed coming from a person with inherent interest in almost every case is cause for major concern and probably ground for recusal from _every_ case. A Supreme Court justice should be extremely mindful of even the possible appearance or impression of unethical behavior as their unethical behavior serves to discredit the institution itself. Why do you feel the need to come here and defend this plainly unethical behavior from justice thomas?
    - akramachamarei 6mo ago
      I don't think it's plain. My motivation for commenting, generally, is that a lot of people seem to have weird impressions of SCOTUS. In this case, I really don't see cause for recusal, though I suppose it would've been preferable to disclose. (But I suspect I only feel obliged to admit that because of the fervor with which the press reported it, which seems to me somewhat politically motivated.) I'd be interested if there were an example of a case where Thomas took an opinion that was (a) at odds with his judicial style and (b) clearly and directly benefitted Harlan Crowe. The fall of Chevron deference is not to me one of those cases. I see it, plainly, as returning some powers back to the proper branch. You seem to be suggesting that no judges should receive gifts from at least any business leaders at all? And if they do that they should recuse. I think that's a rather extreme position. I don't think the minds of justices are so malleable.

someguydave 6mo ago

Orange man bad, republicans bad. Thanks for the info