Reading through these comments, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

From the Daily Beast:

>Clarence Thomas’ mom is definitely still living in a house bought by a Texas billionaire who bankrolled luxury trips for her Supreme Court justice son, according to a report. On Thursday, ProPublica reported that Republican megadonor Harlan Crow bought two vacant lots and a single-story home in Savannah, Georgia, from Thomas in 2014 and that experts believe Thomas violated a federal law by failing to disclose the sale. Crow also then reportedly spent tens of thousands of dollars on renovations at the home occupied by Leola Williams, Thomas’ mother, but ProPublica couldn’t definitively confirm that Williams was still living in the property after 2020. Later Thursday, Slate reported unequivocally that Williams remains in the house to this day. The outlet said one of its reporters interviewed Williams at the property “two weeks ago” for an upcoming podcast.

This is acceptable conduct? We should just accept this level of venality? Boggles my mind. Where are all the patriots?

[1]: https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-mom-definitely...

The fact that all 9 justices pretty much agreed that this is a non-issue speaks volumes. Justices are above the law and play by different rules.

A regular govt worker receiving a $25 gift card has to report it or could be fired, but once you get to Supreme Court, you can do whatever you want.

The US supreme court is absurdly political, I don't see how that can work long-term. There are very strong incentives to put judges on it that strongly represent your political views. This also means that holding them accountable is strongly disincentivized if it means that you might lose one slot.

A supreme court that is blatantly partisan is not really a proper check nor balance. The system must be set up in a way that encourages less partisan judges, though I don't know how you could achieve that in the US the way the situation is now.

Hmm...just like congress doesn't have a problem with trading stocks of companies in industries they oversee and have insider knowledge on, such as which businesses can be open and which ones have to close during the pandemic, or which company is going to get a big government contract, etc. Why do we leave these questions to the institutions themselves to answer? The answer will always be "we don't see a problem."

The billionaire that bought out Thomas has close ties to the Bush family and has a long history of contributing to GOP led smear campaigns. While going after Thomas is important, we must also have our eyes on the man bankrolling this.

The US judiciary system is an absurd institution. Unelected, holds their position for life with no accountability and virtually limitless power to give/take away rights on a whim. Where are the checks and balances that every other branch of government adheres to?

What can we do about this kind of stuff happening from a legal perspective? Supreme court justices are appointed for life and basically have no real "checks"

If there are no consequences, they have no reason to stop.

The court is corrupt. They may not realize it, but that's what this is.

This is what I get from Sweden: “This site not available in your country”.

> Across the ideological spectrum

daily reminder that we’re all aware of the ways each side is different, and that its valid to be more bothered by the ways in which they’re the same

The salary for justices is under $300,000 a year. There is no promotion path, and it's intended to be a lifetime appointment. Corporate law firm partners routinely make well into 7 figures.That is an invitation to corruption, they are some of the most powerful people in the United States. This isn't meant to excuse unethical behavior or corruption, but it should be addressed at the same time as enforcement.

Lifetime appointments, dysfunctional congress means that any novel, meaningful political developments are going to come from a corrupt, partisan court that won't be held accountable. Exciting stuff.

I think the problems with politicisation of the judiciary and general venality in the US are due to the same dynamic that erases democracy in communist countries like the USSR and China. Hear me out.

In the USSR and China you do have democracy, but it’s voting for party lists of approved candidates. These people sit on committees that vote for the next rung up, and so in until you get to the top. The problem is too much democracy. But because it’s all run by committees in practice it’s all stitched up in back room deals with the leaders at the top directing the lower levels.

In the US it’s a different structure but the effect is similar. You don’t just have elected politicians, but ejected judges, elected sheriffs, prosecutors, electoral officials, even elected librarians. Plus direct voting on initiatives. Ordinary voters can’t possibly keep up with who is who, what their individual records are or what platforms all these people are standing on. so they just go with the party approved candidate. Parties also run campaigns for candidates, so in practice candidates owe their actual chance of getting elected not to the voters, but to the patronage of party machines.

This goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Liberal justices are the darlings of Democrats and are feted and celebrated. Conservative justices are the darlings of Republicans.

The problem is severe disconnection between voters and the people they are voting for.

We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing.

You mean, lower the bar?

I have to give an unpopular opinion here. I strongly respect the SCOTUS justices and the methods of their qualification to the bench as well as their lack of term limits and seniority as a long-term component of stability within the federal government. There are few other institutions that provide the same level of rigor and thoughtfulness to our government, and have the credibility and respect because they do not swing with the wind every year.

Part of that capability includes that they not be swayed by whatever hot topic of the moment, including this. In general, I agree with the line, "if a Supreme Court justice can be bought for so little, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined".

Not to say that no justice has ever done anything unquestionable. But I find that the muckraking (like the Daily Beast article quoted by another comment) only seemed to garner interest in being investigated because of the number of controversial opinions lately.[0] And people on the left were happy with the way things were as long as the Court ruled in their favor. Which is a weak position to find yourself having taken.

Any time an argument about the structure of the Court comes up, I ask, did you feel that way when it was ruling in favor of you? If not, then what kind of institution are you asking to be created? Beware.

If you thought the Court needed to be packed, would you adopt the same position if it were to be packed with conservatives? If you call for the removal of Clarence Thomas, would you be happy to have seen RBG removed for some similar questionable travel she engaged in? You want term limits on the current justices -- would you have been in favor of that for the justice that was giving you "yes" votes on cases? Or is it just because the Court's rulings aren't going your way lately?

We have far too much in society today where people want to change the rules just because the last decision didn't go their way. Democracy, I think, is actually about losing gracefully and without having a revolution, not that you always get your way.

The Court is deciding topics that are intrinsically hard to make "objectively fair" decisions about. This Court chooses to return us to previous positions that were also defensible (or saying that interpretations were incorrect) and according to certain legal principles, re-adhering to what the Constitution says to do. The Court rules on things that are intrinsically open for interpretation.

And it is a reflection of our other parts of government being dysfunctional that we for example, cannot amend the Constitution if we think that standards need to change. No court will save us on an issue where 50% of people disagree on it, no matter how strongly you may feel that your side is right. The Court is the last place that you should try to make change happen.

I am not in favor of suddenly finding / proposing all sorts of new rules just because a ruling didn't go your way.

[0] See this story for why you should read more of the detail if you wish to have a position that's more informed than "this is so corrupt": https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/opinion-potomac-watch/the-billi...

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]