• imaqtpieA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    Yes? Who’s on the payroll? Conservative judges ruling according to conservative doctrine isn’t evidence of corruption.

    Every single case that happens in the Supreme Court is documented by an army of scribes. It’s all publicly accessible.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      Do you honestly believe that I’m referring to their conservative beliefs? Have you been living under a rock? Google “Harlan Crow” for one.

      Being publicly accessible does not preclude corruption. There is a reason that there are a few specific justices that are constantly arguing against any type of oversight.

      • imaqtpieA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        Of course it doesn’t preclude corruption, it just makes it incredibly difficult to pull off. There’s no way to make it illegal for Supreme Court justices to have friends and family, is there? But when they start trying to bend the rules, they get caught very easily. Clarence Thomas is certainly suspicious but that’s why there’s public outrage and he’s being investigated.

        Indeed, FixTheCourt, an organization dedicated to greater court transparency, found that Justice Clarence Thomas had received some $4.2 million in gifts and luxury trips over the past 20 years, much of it from Republican megadonors. In contrast, FixTheCourt reported that the other eight justices, plus the eight retired or deceased justices got gifts that altogether were valued at roughly $600,000 over the same 20-year period.

        So aside from Thomas, the other judges received an average of $37,500 in gifts each over the past 20 years. Not nearly enough to claim widespread corruption. The reality is that corruption is unecessary, the judges argue in a certain way because that’s what they believe.

        They were appointed to the Supreme Court in the first place because of their established judicial records which go back decades. There are several justices that frequently argue against government oversight because that’s the kind of judges that Republican presidents have decided to appoint, because they believe in the same things. It doesn’t always need to be some grand conspiracy, it’s usually a much more banal form of dysfunction.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Why would I put Thomas aside? He is not the only one, by the way, look into Alito.

          That is 2 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices. And I do not trust any person hand-picked by the Federalist Society. At what point should we be concerned about our highest court being corrupt?

          • imaqtpieA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Because he’s the exception that proves the rule. If he in fact is corrupt, it indicates that it’s very easy to catch a corrupt justice, because they have to disclose all of their gift, income, etc.

            Look into Alito? You look into Alito, bitch. Have a report on my desk first thing tomorrow morning.