Omnibus Corrupt SCOTUS Thread

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The Left’s Bad Faith Recusal Argument Targets Justice Thomas for His Principles and Success

Faced with a Supreme Court that for the first time in living memory is composed of a majority of originalists, and hampered by the failure of court-packing plans to gain steam, the Left is now trying to gin up interest in pseudo-ethics issues on the Court. It’s a cynical strategy to dull the influence of a Court they can’t control and a long-shot attempt to strategically remove justices from key cases. It has never truly been about ethics, of course, but is rather a transparent play for power that targets conservative justices in general and Justice Thomas in particular.

It’s hard to know where to begin to point out the double standard in play here.

As recent Supreme Court justices go, no one has presented more issues than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her husband Marty, though he was a prominent tax lawyer, was never subjected to the newly-invented standards Democrats are trying to apply to Thomas. Justice Ginsburg participated in cases touching on areas her husband and his firm dealt with (though obviously not in cases in which he was directly involved). What’s more, as I have previously addressed in greater detail, she participated in 21 cases during the 1990s in which her husband Marty had actually invested in companies involved in the litigation—a blatant violation of the federal recusal statute. Is it any coincidence that these newly-concocted recusal standards weren’t floated while Ginsburg was on the Court?

As politically engaged judicial spouses go, Justice Thomas is not even in the same category as Judge Nina Pillard of the D.C. Circuit or the late Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit. Both sat on cases in which the ACLU participated, despite having spouses who worked for the activist group. Or Judge Marjorie Rendell of the Third Circuit, who before taking senior status was married to Ed Rendell, the mayor of Philadelphia, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and governor of Pennsylvania. Spouses do not get more political than when they chair a national party or get elected to high office.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-lefts-bad-faith-recusal-argument-targets-justice-thomas-for-his-principles-and-success/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The Left’s Bad Faith Recusal Argument Targets Justice Thomas for His Principles and Success

Faced with a Supreme Court that for the first time in living memory is composed of a majority of originalists, and hampered by the failure of court-packing plans to gain steam, the Left is now trying to gin up interest in pseudo-ethics issues on the Court. It’s a cynical strategy to dull the influence of a Court they can’t control and a long-shot attempt to strategically remove justices from key cases. It has never truly been about ethics, of course, but is rather a transparent play for power that targets conservative justices in general and Justice Thomas in particular.

It’s hard to know where to begin to point out the double standard in play here.

As recent Supreme Court justices go, no one has presented more issues than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her husband Marty, though he was a prominent tax lawyer, was never subjected to the newly-invented standards Democrats are trying to apply to Thomas. Justice Ginsburg participated in cases touching on areas her husband and his firm dealt with (though obviously not in cases in which he was directly involved). What’s more, as I have previously addressed in greater detail, she participated in 21 cases during the 1990s in which her husband Marty had actually invested in companies involved in the litigation—a blatant violation of the federal recusal statute. Is it any coincidence that these newly-concocted recusal standards weren’t floated while Ginsburg was on the Court?

As politically engaged judicial spouses go, Justice Thomas is not even in the same category as Judge Nina Pillard of the D.C. Circuit or the late Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit. Both sat on cases in which the ACLU participated, despite having spouses who worked for the activist group. Or Judge Marjorie Rendell of the Third Circuit, who before taking senior status was married to Ed Rendell, the mayor of Philadelphia, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and governor of Pennsylvania. Spouses do not get more political than when they chair a national party or get elected to high office.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/the-lefts-bad-faith-recusal-argument-targets-justice-thomas-for-his-principles-and-success/

Oh look! One of Thomas's former clerks, a federalist society stooge, has an opinion.
The absolute gall to accuse “the left “ of court packing is pathetic.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Toldja. If the GOP gets power again, they’re going to shove gay people right back in the closet, by force, if necessary. Damn the consequences.

[Anonymous]

The judicial activism from the right is destroying the rule of law on our country

Of course, this was the intent, but our country is simply not aware of the damage being done right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The judicial activism from the right is destroying the rule of law on our country

Of course, this was the intent, but our country is simply not aware of the damage being done right now.

Would be nice if the fascist cheerleaders in the media did their jobs.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

I wonder what Trump has on the SCOTUS that he could take a 9-0 circuit court decision around his immunity claims and turn it and the concept of a president being above the law, on its head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When you have someone on the left who writes for Slate (you can't get much more left than that) criticizing their side for these attacks, you might want to pay attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what Trump has on the SCOTUS that he could take a 9-0 circuit court decision around his immunity claims and turn it and the concept of a president being above the law, on its head.

Nothing. Trump is but a symptom. The GOP is broken and they break everything they touch.

[Anonymous]

haha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:haha

“Ha ha” but through tears that the Roberts court is on par with any of the most corrupt courts in the world.

And it was all seeded in the terrible decision of December 2000 when the turkeys on the court handed the election to Bush for no reason whatsoever. Now three of the amoral losers who fought for that decision are the turkeys on the court. And none of us can do much about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha

“Ha ha” but through tears that the Roberts court is on par with any of the most corrupt courts in the world.

And it was all seeded in the terrible decision of December 2000 when the turkeys on the court handed the election to Bush for no reason whatsoever. Now three of the amoral losers who fought for that decision are the turkeys on the court. And none of us can do much about it.

Absolutely it was a haha through tears. Based on the latest decision to listen to the absolutely ridiculous immunity hearing. Absolutely jawdroppingly corrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha

“Ha ha” but through tears that the Roberts court is on par with any of the most corrupt courts in the world.

And it was all seeded in the terrible decision of December 2000 when the turkeys on the court handed the election to Bush for no reason whatsoever. Now three of the amoral losers who fought for that decision are the turkeys on the court. And none of us can do much about it.

Absolutely it was a haha through tears. Based on the latest decision to listen to the absolutely ridiculous immunity hearing. Absolutely jawdroppingly corrupt.

You know the decision is going to be totally “Trump can do whatever he wants, but only Trump ha ha so Biden better not get any ideas because we’ll allow anyone to nail him to the wall for a parking ticket given to one of his USSS for the beast.”