Hey guys I know it’s wild but there might be some corruption going on in the Supreme Court.
this post was submitted on 15 Sep 2024
742 points (99.1% liked)
politics
18883 readers
3601 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Lucky for us there is a system of checks and....oh wait...
Bribery. Checks and bribery.
A system of checks and money orders. And cash.
And luxury vacations. And forgiven "loans." And property purchased as "gifts." And free flights on private jets. And...
These fuckers. These absolutely amoral fuckers.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Don't forget the gold bars, and RVs
And cigarette cartons
load more comments
(2 replies)
The biggest blunder of the framers was assuming we'd never form factions (i.e. parties). The assumption was that the branches would oppose each other, not collude.
I don't think that's their fault. They specifically addressed a two party system in multiple writings (they didn't like it) in addition to explicitly stating that they expected future generations to update the constitution as necessary to protect the republic from those who would seek to undermine or replace it. We didn't heed their warnings and now here we are.
To be clear, I don't think the framers were infallible or able to see all possibile challenges that our nation would face. However, they seem to have been pretty damn good at learning from history and that's something modern Americans are absolutely abysmal at. For all their faults they have a lot to teach us in that respect.
they expected future generations to update the constitution as necessary to protect the republic from those who would seek to undermine or replace it.
The problem with this is that it requires people in power to vote to limit their own power. And while there have been some, certainly, who have been willing to do so, getting a supermajority of people willing to do it is simply not something I see as remotely possible anymore.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(8 replies)
there is a system of cheques and account balances?
The supreme court makes a mockery of democracy (intentionally) and should be treated with scorn instead of reverence.
I'd like to take a moment to remind y'all that Clarence "I'm For Sale" Thomas turned down a FREE RV offered by Last Week Tonight. So he's not corrupt. He's selective.
Let's wait and see how he votes on repealing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
I'm sure he'll vote his conscience
but he already has a free RV,
I think Oliver also offered him $1 million a year from Oliver’s personal moneys. Which is not an insignificant amount of money for a justice who isn’t corrupt.
In the past, he signaled he'd retire because he wasn't getting paid enough, meaning he needed to be bribed to keep a conservative justice on the SCOTUS.
If you take it at face value, then he should have jumped at John Olivers' offer.
The only thing Thomas likes more than money is respect. He would never take Oliver money because it would publicly embarrass him. He hates embarrassment more than anything.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This one would be newer. A truth lost on us plebes who have to pay for things.
but he was holding out for a private jet.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why take a bribe from John Oliver, who would immediately turn around and disclose that Thomas accepted it on his television program, when he could just go ask Daddy Harlan Crow for an identical RV and then not disclose it?
The Supreme Court is corrupt to the core. There's an inability to hold them accountable for anything. The system of checks and balances functionally doesn't exist for this "apolitical" branch.
And one million dollar a year
load more comments
(1 replies)
“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the Times.
That's all the Times is gonna give us? One sentence of a memo relating to one of the most questionable Supreme Court decisions of all time? The voters should know everything about how they got to this decision.
Yeah that's not even enough for me to know if it's controversial. I, also, think SCOTUS will have different opinions on separation of powers.
While I agree we need more, this may not sound like much to you or me... but a SCOTUS judge saying it basically states he already has made up his mind about where he stands before even taking the case. They are supposed to be impartial at all times
Exactly. This is a conservative-majority SCOTUS saying, "We decided long ago what we were going to do about this issue and many others. Nothing you can say will change our course. This conversation is over."
When Thomas said he thinks they will have different views, he wasn't saying "we" as in the various supreme court justices. That may be a more reasonable statement.
Thomas said "we" the Supreme Court will have different views than both Chutkin and the DC appeals courts. He was saying SCOTUS will probably overturn the two lower courts.
this would be very "study shows parents more tired than non parents" energy
We all know what they had very stupid reasoning, the only question here is "how stupid?"
I say..."And?"
Like anything will come of it.
I am shocked...shocked to find corruption going on in the Supreme Court!
I'm shocked that they kept the records of the corruption
This … I’d have thought he would not have put it in writing
Well not that shocked.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Damn. Maybe time to revisit whether Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided.
I'm GLAD that these LAWMAKERS are UNELECTED and Appointed for a LIFETIME!
Term limits won't help with systemic corruption, because replacing corrupt judges with new corrupt judges would be the natural response.
Enshrining impeachment as a regular and viable strategy for actual corruption would be.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not surprised that it happened, shocked that the story got out.
Are they going to vigorously investigate these leaks just long enough to find out it was one of the conservatives and then drop the whole thing?
load more comments
(4 replies)
view more: next ›