DiscussMormonism.com

https://x.com/i/status/1803770143517913120

Senator Whitehouse has made an endeavor in his Senate speeches to talk about what he sees as potential corruption among some members of the court. It has included large charts and now this comedic type video. While it has been shown that the liberal Judges have also received some benefits, Supreme Court Justice Thomas has taken it to a new level. When I worked in the public sector we had to report any gifts that were sent to us personally. Nice biros for example perhaps to encourage the purchasing officer to include that brand on the next stationary order. Justice Thomas, it has been reported, complains about the inadequacy of the wage received by Judges. If some Billionaire pays off a loan on a car Thomas made, should Thomas recuse himself from cases which involve that billionaire's business?

While we are at it, should Justices be seen flying the upside down flag which was a symbol of January 6th and also be involved in a case where Trump is accused of trying to overthrow the result? It seems they now plan to make it happen next time for sure if the result is not to their liking. Justice Thomas has said the court's attention will now start on the use of contraception and also gay marriage.

It's likely that those who can remove him from office do the same thing.

Get rid of the senate and house and save the money and let the executive rule with supreme court support. King Donald Trump can be succeeded by Don Jr.

Any evidence for your assertion or is that a dose of whataboutism? Capture the courts and block cases against gerrymandering. Whoopsie, Utah can stay gerrymandered.

While there are extreme cases of unqualified loyalists working for bribes and little else, the fact that the Supreme Court rules down party lines and that it's obvious, is enough to mistrust not only the Supreme Court, but the entire legal process. Of course, it's a high bar to expect a high court to rule by the constitution, which is a short document written a long time ago. It's all but guaranteed the interpreters will see what they want to see. Apparently, it's not clear how the constitution should be interpreted. It can be seen as a "whitelist" or a "blacklist". Progressives see it as a blacklist, unless the constitution says you can't make a law like that, then go ahead and make it. As a whitelist, it says what's allowed, and anything beyond that isn't allowed. But that interpretive framework is adopted post hoc, after first deciding if you're a conservative or a progressive.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Sun Jun 23, 2024 2:08 pm

While there are extreme cases of unqualified loyalists working for bribes and little else, the fact that the Supreme Court rules down party lines and that it's obvious, is enough to mistrust not only the Supreme Court, but the entire legal process. Of course, it's a high bar to expect a high court to rule by the constitution, which is a short document written a long time ago. It's all but guaranteed the interpreters will see what they want to see. Apparently, it's not clear how the constitution should be interpreted. It can be seen as a "whitelist" or a "blacklist". Progressives see it as a blacklist, unless the constitution says you can't make a law like that, then go ahead and make it. As a whitelist, it says what's allowed, and anything beyond that isn't allowed. But that interpretive framework is adopted post hoc, after first deciding if you're a conservative or a progressive.

Hi Gadianton: Although I agree in point, I have observed something others might not see. I think that those justices picked during certain administrations will most likely rule in line with that administration once it leaves office. But I'll go out on a limb and say that those picked during a Democratic Party administration will likely vote that way in most cases, but those who are picked by a Republican administration may vote in a way that surprises so-called conservatives.

I think in today's world a Republican administration pick for a justice may argue and write an opinion that is more likely to surprise the right-wing political dogma base than a Democratic administration pick. I think Sotomayor, Kagen, and Jackson will agree more than Roberts, Alito, and Gorsuch. My samples are small and likely wrong and I'm sure Res Ipsa can clarify things, but if I remember right it was Roberts who ruled the Obama health care plan was actually constitutional because he saw it as a tax. His ruling surprised the conservatives who pushed his appointment so strongly.

The recent ruling by many conservative justices that the Trump administration and the ATF ban on bump stocks was wrong was overturned. Justice Thomas said that those stocks didn't turn a rifle into a machine gun as the trigger needs to reset for the next round to fire. I thought it's likely he knew that because he shot rifles many times at private hunting ranches owned by his top 1% friends.

I think once chosen a U.S. Supreme Court justice may start ruling in ways that shocks the person who submitted his name to the senate. Look at what Chief Justice Burger wrote on the executive branch and the Nixon/Watergate scandal. It shows you that many times justices break and write opinions that surprise those who think they think like them.

But with many justices, I just like to hear them talk. I remember being spellbound when listening to justice Anthony Kennedy giving a speech on C-span. I also sat in complete silence and was so captivated when Stephen Breyer was nominated and listened to his answers from senators' questions; I remember telling a friend how Breyer would listen to the question and there was a brief pause for a few seconds as he prepared his response; his response was so articulate. I was stunned as I should have been because he is very smart. Even though I didn't agree with some of his rulings, I was a fan from listening to him respond to the senators' questions and through his time on the court. I was really concerned when he fell while riding his bike.

But these justices have written in law journals as law students and lawyers and made calls as judges. The senate has all this in front of them when they vote.

I'm not a lawyer, just a baby-boomer who has observed how the court ruled the past four decades. I also think now that justices who believe in Catholicism are a majority on the court.

There is something fundamentally disturbing about 7 out of the 9 Supreme Court Justices all being Catholic. How did this come to pass? Would it be any less disturbing if 7 out of the 9 were all Mormons, evangelicals, Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist? Why should the Supreme court be any less reflective of the diversity of our great nation than any other of our governmental agencies and branches? Of the 2 who are not Catholic, one is a Jew (Justice Kagan) and the other is a Protestant (Justice Jackson). For better balance, there should be greater religious diversity, including at least one Atheist or Agnostic! And all of the Justices should be required to be scientifically and mathematically literate, as well as historically literate, and perhaps most of all, highly knowledgeable about the Constitution and the laws.

Current Supreme Court members have shown they are eminently corruptible with their gift-taking.

You have to hand it to the GOP folks for getting control of the Supreme Court as those judges are there for life and have little chance of getting impeached. If Biden wins, some have said he could add some more liberal judges to the court. Gerrymandering helps them keep the house. Next on the block: Birth control and gay marriage. Clarence can enjoy another cigar around the campfire with his financial supporters.

The court is mistrusted because their decisions are clearly political, using interpretations of the law to support their own personal desires.

Thomas being a corrupt asshole and Alito being an obvious liar doesn't help.