3 ms·

You'll see many comments here complaining about the corruption or partisanship of the Supreme Court. Notably, though, no actual accusations of bribery (gifts to

You'll see many comments here complaining about the corruption or partisanship of the Supreme Court. Notably, though, no actual accusations of bribery (gifts to judges from people not involved in cases is not bribery), nor are any opinions articulated on mistakes made by the court in its majorities. Which is to be expected, Hackernews is not populated by lawyers, after all! I can certainly empathize with people who don't like the outcomes of some recent SCOTUS decisions. I don't like the outcome of Dobbs for example. But picking outcomes is emphatically not the job of the judicial branch, that is Congress' job. The judicial branch is supposed to interpret laws and the Constitution as accurately as possible, but not write them. N.b. some interesting stats: in the 2024 term, for example, ~40% cases were unanimously decided, and only about 1 in 11 were split along ideological lines, according to this study from scotusblog (ideology calculated as Martin-Quinn score): https://cdn.sanity.io/files/pito4za5/production/d8301fc26d152ddfb9a09a8ac8845be5d5785ada.pdf https://cdn.sanity.io/files/pito4za5/production/d8301fc26d15...

tastyface 5mo ago
"gifts to judges from people not involved in cases is not bribery" Uhhh, yeah that's a big <citation needed> there bud. If a prominent party member gifts you lavish vacations and you subsequently decide cases along party lines, what else would you call that?
- akramachamarei 5mo ago
  Citation needed? Refer to a dictionary ;). I think the big question mark is on "you subsequently decide cases along party lines." Citation needed? This I think is the major stumbling block in the public perception of the court. It's ideological divides aren't always the one's in the vernacular. I looked at one of the more vehement and thorough articles alleging the thing you are, and it was pretty unconvincing: https://truthout.org/articles/report-harlan-crow-has-a-stake-in-4-scotus-cases-and-thomas-hasnt-recused https://truthout.org/articles/report-harlan-crow-has-a-stake...
  - UncleMeat 5mo ago
    The appearance of corruption has always been a valid concern too.
  - tastyface 5mo ago
    Why is a typical public servant not allowed to accept even a $20 gift to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but the Venerable Judge Thomas can accept... <checks> ...5 MILLION DOLLARS worth of gifts, nearly half of all known gifts to the Supreme Court and many of them undeclared? What in the actual fuck? Describe this situation to anyone not deep in a political bubble and see what they call it.
  - deleted 5mo ago
    [deleted]
Arodex 5mo ago
>The judicial branch is supposed to interpret laws and the Constitution as accurately as possible, but not write them. Yes, it is very obvious the Constitution said the president is immune. And the recent decision on the VRA is completely based on the interpretation that there is no more racial discrimination - which fell apart in the days after. >N.b. some interesting stats: in the 2024 term, for example, ~40% cases were unanimously decided Now do the statistics for 2025-2026, cherrypicker.
- halJordan 5mo ago
  Of this comment and the its parent, this is the comment hurting America. It's unrepentantly belligerent and sarcastic without actually trying prove its contrarian view. You could have at least provided the 2025/6 statistics you claim disprove something. But instead you just levy an insult. All in all, F for effort in being a productive member of society
  - croon 5mo ago
    I struggle with this daily. If two comments state the opposite, and one is "constructive" in framing, and one is antagonistic, I agree it's easier to carry the conversation with the former. But if the latter is the factually correct one, I'm not sure it's the one "hurting America", at least comparatively. This is an assumption made by me in service of the hypothetical. In general, I think debates (the school competition kind/internet spectacle kind) focuses entirely to much on perception, and very little on content, in that whoever wins is completely disjoint from who if any is actually right. Though I suppose it's easier to police/moderate the presentation than the veracity. TL;DR: I agree with you in general, all else being equal, but that's not always the case.
  - Arodex 5mo ago
    What is hurting America is bad faith and bullshit. Not "belligerence" nor sarcasm. This constant appeal to civility only serves to stamp down any discussion. One side is doing ugly things, but the other is put down the second they dare use a bad word or are even slightly snarky. The parent comment is lying and manipulating his ass off - of course he is, why would he willingly mention statistics from 2024 when we are in 2026? He did it on purpose; but you find offense in my comment because I dare point it out in a not-kind-enough way. Not even unkind nor insulting: not kind enough. I am even called "contrarian". Words stopped meaning anything, apparently.

tastyface 5mo ago

"gifts to judges from people not involved in cases is not bribery" Uhhh, yeah that's a big <citation needed> there bud. If a prominent party member gifts you lavish vacations and you subsequently decide cases along party lines, what else would you call that?

akramachamarei 5mo ago
Citation needed? Refer to a dictionary ;). I think the big question mark is on "you subsequently decide cases along party lines." Citation needed? This I think is the major stumbling block in the public perception of the court. It's ideological divides aren't always the one's in the vernacular. I looked at one of the more vehement and thorough articles alleging the thing you are, and it was pretty unconvincing: https://truthout.org/articles/report-harlan-crow-has-a-stake-in-4-scotus-cases-and-thomas-hasnt-recused https://truthout.org/articles/report-harlan-crow-has-a-stake...
- UncleMeat 5mo ago
  The appearance of corruption has always been a valid concern too.
- tastyface 5mo ago
  Why is a typical public servant not allowed to accept even a $20 gift to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but the Venerable Judge Thomas can accept... <checks> ...5 MILLION DOLLARS worth of gifts, nearly half of all known gifts to the Supreme Court and many of them undeclared? What in the actual fuck? Describe this situation to anyone not deep in a political bubble and see what they call it.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

Arodex 5mo ago

>The judicial branch is supposed to interpret laws and the Constitution as accurately as possible, but not write them. Yes, it is very obvious the Constitution said the president is immune. And the recent decision on the VRA is completely based on the interpretation that there is no more racial discrimination - which fell apart in the days after. >N.b. some interesting stats: in the 2024 term, for example, ~40% cases were unanimously decided Now do the statistics for 2025-2026, cherrypicker.

halJordan 5mo ago
Of this comment and the its parent, this is the comment hurting America. It's unrepentantly belligerent and sarcastic without actually trying prove its contrarian view. You could have at least provided the 2025/6 statistics you claim disprove something. But instead you just levy an insult. All in all, F for effort in being a productive member of society
- croon 5mo ago
  I struggle with this daily. If two comments state the opposite, and one is "constructive" in framing, and one is antagonistic, I agree it's easier to carry the conversation with the former. But if the latter is the factually correct one, I'm not sure it's the one "hurting America", at least comparatively. This is an assumption made by me in service of the hypothetical. In general, I think debates (the school competition kind/internet spectacle kind) focuses entirely to much on perception, and very little on content, in that whoever wins is completely disjoint from who if any is actually right. Though I suppose it's easier to police/moderate the presentation than the veracity. TL;DR: I agree with you in general, all else being equal, but that's not always the case.
- Arodex 5mo ago
  What is hurting America is bad faith and bullshit. Not "belligerence" nor sarcasm. This constant appeal to civility only serves to stamp down any discussion. One side is doing ugly things, but the other is put down the second they dare use a bad word or are even slightly snarky. The parent comment is lying and manipulating his ass off - of course he is, why would he willingly mention statistics from 2024 when we are in 2026? He did it on purpose; but you find offense in my comment because I dare point it out in a not-kind-enough way. Not even unkind nor insulting: not kind enough. I am even called "contrarian". Words stopped meaning anything, apparently.