Theres a rumor going around Clarence Thomas had communications with Desantis.

[Pens1566]

The only discipline for SCOTUS justices is impeachment, they aren't subject to the normal judicial code of ethics. Also I'm not sure it's a good idea to try and remove public officials based on the actions of their spouse. It's supposed to be HIS misconduct, not his wife's.

HIS misconduct is not properly reporting her income from groups that were groups involved in cases the court heard.

 

[fskimospy]

HIS misconduct is not properly reporting her income from groups that were groups involved in cases the court heard.

You're not going to impeach and convict a SCOTUS justice on that.

Really, outside of one of them going on a killing spree you're not convicting them for anything. (and maybe not then) Better to just expand the court.

 

[Greenman]

I wish you showed that level of concern for the racism that killed Ahmed Arbury. Your choices are interesting

I think I would have said the same thing if someone had called him an uncle Tom.

 

[Greenman]

You're not going to impeach and convict a SCOTUS justice on that.

Really, outside of one of them going on a killing spree you're not convicting them for anything. (and maybe not then) Better to just expand the court.

Expanding the court is a band aid idea that will never end well. Within a few short years the court will be the size of congress. I'm approaching the point where I'd rather see an AI as the entire supreme court. I want the politics out, the constitution in.

 

[fskimospy]

Expanding the court is a band aid idea that will never end well. Within a few short years the court will be the size of congress.

No, it’s a really good idea. It accomplishes a bunch of really good things for the country.

1) acts as a check and balance on the judicial branch, which has gotten entirely out of control. Implicit in this should be the threat that if the judiciary continues to try and usurp the powers of the other branches, more expansions are coming. I mean right now judges are demanding the right to control US foreign policy in some cases. This is insanity.

2) expanding the court will end SCOTUS shenanigans. Sure we might have a few expansions back and forth but the end result will be to broker a deal to end this once and for all. As it stands now huge swaths of the country are basically governed by when an octogenarian decides to have a heart attack. This is not a serious way to run a country.

3) Just from a good governance standpoint we should expand the court to say 51 judges or something. The costs are minimal and with that many it wouldn’t matter if one judge died or retired. Would take the temperature way down on the judicial wars and would limit wild swings in policy. Think of it now - since the 70’s abortion was a constitutional right. RBG does? Suddenly (likely) no longer a right. Thomas dies? Suddenly a right again! Is that a good way to do things?

I'm approaching the point where I'd rather see an AI as the entire supreme court. I want the politics out, the constitution in.

Everyone claims to want that but it’s impossible as both sides say that’s what they are doing. SCOTUS is inherently political and it’s time people accepted that.

 

[MrSquished]

No, it’s a really good idea. It accomplishes a bunch of really good things for the country.

1) acts as a check and balance on the judicial branch, which has gotten entirely out of control. Implicit in this should be the threat that if the judiciary continues to try and usurp the powers of the other branches, more expansions are coming. I mean right now judges are demanding the right to control US foreign policy in some cases. This is insanity.

2) expanding the court will end SCOTUS shenanigans. Sure we might have a few expansions back and forth but the end result will be to broker a deal to end this once and for all. As it stands now huge swaths of the country are basically governed by when an octogenarian decides to have a heart attack. This is not a serious way to run a country.

3) Just from a good governance standpoint we should expand the court to say 51 judges or something. The costs are minimal and with that many it wouldn’t matter if one judge died or retired. Would take the temperature way down on the judicial wars and would limit wild swings in policy. Think of it now - since the 70’s abortion was a constitutional right. RBG does? Suddenly (likely) no longer a right. Thomas dies? Suddenly a right again! Is that a good way to do things?


Everyone claims to want that but it’s impossible as both sides say that’s what they are doing. SCOTUS is inherently political and it’s time people accepted that.

It's also high time people start realizing a document created 250 years ago by a bunch of pretty backwards men by today's standards in a world much much smaller and with far different populations is just not working that well anymore, and to stop saying we need to worship it.

It's insane.

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

Expanding the court is a band aid idea that will never end well. Within a few short years the court will be the size of congress.

As I've said before (and was previously the law), the seats should be tied to the number of Circuits which is currently 13. The number of Circuits changes, the number of Seats changes.

But I also feel they should not always have the final say. There needs to be a way to undo bad rulings (like Hobby Lobby).

 

[kage69]

I think I would have said the same thing if someone had called him an uncle Tom.

Pity your thinking doesn't carry much weight here.

I choose my puns carefully. Go familiarize yourself with Flowers v Mississippi, particularly the part where Brett fucking Kavanaugh has a problem with the prosecutor being "cartoonishly racist" yet somehow Thomas is fine with it, choosing instead to blame the media. Funny how a black man who grew up in the Jim Crow South voted to gut the Voting Rights Act, no?

I don't think you care much about racism at all, if you did you wouldn't support the assholes and politics you do.

 

[kage69]

Restore the court to 13 and we can likely heal the credibility and legitimacy deficit the GQP has infected it with.

The "conservatives" of the court have proven it's necessary.

 

[Brainonska511]

The only discipline for SCOTUS justices is impeachment, they aren't subject to the normal judicial code of ethics. Also I'm not sure it's a good idea to try and remove public officials based on the actions of their spouse. It's supposed to be HIS misconduct, not his wife's.

There was a Washington Post article today that shines a light on some of the impropriety of the Judiciary, such as its employees not being covered by many anti-discrimination laws. But don't worry, Justice Roberts says they are looking into it and are perfectly capable of self-policing and don't need to have interference from another branch of government (LOL).


Edit:
Law clerk details pregnancy discrimination claim after federal judge fired her 10 days before her baby was born

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/17/law-clerk-pregnancy-discrimination-case/

 

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

From first hand experience working for the Judiciary, I can tell you they most definitely DO need outside oversight.

 

[cytg111]

This lifetime concept and seemingly above the law… I thought everyone agreed it’s stupid. Of course its gonna corrupt. Its what power does. Without checks and balances built in its gonna rot.

 

[Thump553]

You're not going to impeach and convict a SCOTUS justice on that.

Really, outside of one of them going on a killing spree you're not convicting them for anything. (and maybe not then) Better to just expand the court.

Unfortunately you may be correct, which shows how far the simple but basic concepts of character, morality and personal honor have declined in our government since Abe Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court (when he was on the cusp of becoming Chief Justice) in 1969 for what many (sadly) today would consider a minor offense.
https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the-spectacular-fall-of-abe-fortas

 

[Pens1566]

You're not going to impeach and convict a SCOTUS justice on that.

Really, outside of one of them going on a killing spree you're not convicting them for anything. (and maybe not then) Better to just expand the court.

Oh, I know. Which is entirely the problem ...

Agree on the expansion. Should be at least 13 to keep in line with the "one justice for overseeing each circuit" plan.

 

[pete6032]

Justice Thomas' batshit crazy wife was probably also talking his ear off about a stolen election.

Ginni Thomas Pressed Trump’s Chief of Staff to Overturn 2020 Vote, Texts Show (Published 2022)

Messages between Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife and Mark Meadows are the first evidence that she directly advised the White House to reverse the election results.

www.nytimes.com

 

[HomerJS]

No, it’s a really good idea. It accomplishes a bunch of really good things for the country.

1) acts as a check and balance on the judicial branch, which has gotten entirely out of control. Implicit in this should be the threat that if the judiciary continues to try and usurp the powers of the other branches, more expansions are coming. I mean right now judges are demanding the right to control US foreign policy in some cases. This is insanity.

2) expanding the court will end SCOTUS shenanigans. Sure we might have a few expansions back and forth but the end result will be to broker a deal to end this once and for all. As it stands now huge swaths of the country are basically governed by when an octogenarian decides to have a heart attack. This is not a serious way to run a country.

3) Just from a good governance standpoint we should expand the court to say 51 judges or something. The costs are minimal and with that many it wouldn’t matter if one judge died or retired. Would take the temperature way down on the judicial wars and would limit wild swings in policy. Think of it now - since the 70’s abortion was a constitutional right. RBG does? Suddenly (likely) no longer a right. Thomas dies? Suddenly a right again! Is that a good way to do things?


Everyone claims to want that but it’s impossible as both sides say that’s what they are doing. SCOTUS is inherently political and it’s time people accepted that.

How about expanding the pool to a large number and then 9 are randomly chosen (similar to a jury) when it's time to hear a case. Let's say a pool of 24-30 with 18 year terms. Equal numbers chosen by Republicans and Democrats. If a Republican retires or dies that spot is vacant until a Republican can fill it. There are still enough to chose for hearing cases.
Also, justices should not choose the cases to hear. There needs to be an objective group of people who won't decide outcome.

The court in it's current configuration has proven it can't be trusted.

 

[Pens1566]

How about expanding the pool to a large number and then 9 are randomly chosen (similar to a jury) when it's time to hear a case. Let's say a pool of 24-30 with 18 year terms. Equal numbers chosen by Republicans and Democrats. If a Republican retires or dies that spot is vacant until a Republican can fill it. There are still enough to chose for hearing cases.
Also, justices should not choose the cases to hear. That needs to be an objective group of people who won't decide outcome.

The court in it's current configuration has proven it can't be trusted.

I've advocated for this in the past. A slow increase to like 27, then cases are assigned at random to a set of 9. It's basically the way lower appeals circuits already work, just different in numbers.

 

[Homerboy]

I figure this is as good of a place as any

https://twitter.com/x/status/1507105698374692871

 

[cytg111]

I figure this is as good of a place as any

https://twitter.com/x/status/1507105698374692871

So he is as crackpottery as his wife?

 

[pmv]

Just go the whole hog and make Supreme Court membership a hereditary position. You know you miss the monarchy/aristocracy and regret the break up. That's why you went so far in recreating it in all but name. Just take that final step and you can have national celebrations and endless tabloid stories when a Court member manages to spawn.

 

[Roger Wilco]

You’ve been a naughty boy Clarence.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1508790680327495682

 

[brycejones]

You’ve been a naughty boy Clarence.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1508790680327495682

It's on par for his ethics given how lied during his confirmation hearing.

 

[Pens1566]

You’ve been a naughty boy Clarence.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1508790680327495682

Well, at least he's consistent in never saying anything.

 

[iRONic]

I wish you showed that level of concern for the racism that killed Ahmed Arbury. Your choices are interesting

When someone shows you who they are beleive them the first time.

 

[MrSquished]

The amount of corruption by the Republican party from the Supreme court to the last presidency is just unbelievable. I don't know how anyone can associate themselves with the Republican party and still think they have good morals.