Waiting for Roberts, a hard-right partisan from the get-go, to assert leadership and get a grip on the several colossal and growing failures of SCOTUS will be waiting for Godot: he isn't going to show up, ever. It's long past time for Roberts to step out of the CJ role.
Well said. And great metaphor on Waiting for Godot (Roberts). As far as I’ve gleaned, Roberts has been waiting for SCOTUS to be in extreme-right hands. New Yorker piece was very telling on Alito. He doesn’t seem happy with women in careers and not barefoot and pregnant.
I agree. But I also think they’ve feel freed and empowered to no longer be clandestine about their far right extremism. With Alito, the roots seem to stem from his Catholic conservatism and experience with the 1960’s civil rights and culture breakout of that 1950’s repression.
Sorry, Tara. Women aren't incubators. If a woman doesn't want an embryo or fetus inside her, then she gets to remove it. Women are sentient. Fetuses are not.
Or maybe all the victims of forced births of unwanted, poorly cared for babies that became miserable, resentful children that became criminals & murderers by the time they reached adulthood.
Or maybe the billions of animals that were harmed or killed through human overpopulation, overconsumption & various anthropogenic environmental destruction.
It's been a really shitty wake up call. Everything you thought should've been working wasn't. We still have at least one new liar and cheat in Congress with Santos. What a disgrace.
roberts is in an unusual position where he must daily confront the question: what's more important legacy versus wads of secret cash for betraying the american people's trust?
personally, i see roberts as a scumbag who will only do what serves his very short-term interests, legacy be damned.
Did Martha-Ann Alito furnish a verified statement? Would she be willing to voluntarily take a lie detector test to save her husband's reputation?
The Dobbs parties knew that Alito and his wife were culture warriors. IMHO the Supreme Court Bar (I was a member) is remiss in failing to file motions for disqualification. 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. At a minimum Roberts was obliged to acknowledge that there were bias issues.
Daniel, you are right that Roberts should have acknowledged bias, but he wanted Roe overturned too. He would not do that unless forced to do it through an ethics code he was expected to honor. There is none as far as I know that binds the SC justices to behave ethically. I suspect Alito did leak to his wife and she had contacts. They will not be questioned in our current political environment. Roberts' appointment of unqualified, inexperienced people to do the "investigation" is proof that he and now we know where the leak came from.
Aren't those that practice "law" required to behave ethically? Perhaps six judges are showing us that they adhere to a different code of ethics. Like those found in certain places in the Vatican.
Thank you Daniel, who can put pressure on the Supreme Court Bar? members of the Bar? Members of Congress? In spite of the vagary of Article III there must be some lawful path to at least chastisement, if not removal, of a Justice who is abusing her/his position. I know in State Courts even citizens can effect a recall of a judge on the basis of wrongful behavior.
There is no way to “punish” a Supreme Court Justice for an opinion. For behavior, a Justice can be removed vis impeachment. But impeaching a judge is difficult and rare. And a right wing justice will never be impeached in today’s political environment. This is why the lack of a code of conduct for the SCOTUS is so awful!
What if a SCOTUS justice is a criminal? What if the justice is incarcerated?
IMHO with respect to Thomas, within the realm of possibilities. 18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally
Whoever—
(1)having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2)in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
Fay Reid; How about a woman who was a minor child 53 years ago and also a warde of the state, who was forced to give birth to a child she could not raise because she was 'an unfit mother' because of her rape victim status, poverty and minor child status? Said child taken from her, never to be seen again. Endless pain and harm done?
That was why Roe v Wade was passed nearly 70 years ago. However, based on Amendment X, I do understand why some of the Supreme Court Justices justified their decision based on 2 things, 1) there is not specific mention of abortion in the Constitution, 2) in fact there is no mention of women at all until you get to Amendment XIX, and that wasn't ratified until 8/18/1920. Remember until very, very late in the 19th Century, we (women) were considered as mere chattel (property) less value than a slave but down in the realm of horses and dogs. We were patted on the head and told we were good, proper little women, who did what daddy, brother, uncle, etc told us what to do and think, so naturally women were given no rights under the Constitution. The 28th Amendment as been ratified but not yet signed into law - shame on President Biden for this oversight. Anyway, back to abortion, any article not specifically mention in the Constitution "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Our job is to get more States to codify women's rights over their own bodies in all 50 States and to ensure in the future that any new State admitted to the Union recognizes women as human beings with the same rights as men. Kudos to California and Governor Newsom for starting this process within days of the overturn of Roe v Wade.
Yes, the "founding fathers" determined that three branches of government should exist, creating a balance of power, duties, judicial review, and such. Since then, term limits have been placed on the executive branch only. How has that change impacted the nation? Perhaps you are right about term limits for the judicial ( and perhaps, legislative) branch.
Girl Scientist, you are right about Alito and Roberts. I believe neither of them had much of a system of ethics by which they lived before even being nominated. I suspect this is a major reason each was nominated. Alito's scholarship is clearly wanting and we know his moral compass is not working. Roberts was a racist anti-civil rights guy for decades so I am not at all surprised he acts unethically while he mouths the words of "trying to find the truth." He knew the Marshalls would find nothing because it was not the staff who had a lot to risk if they leaked something. Roberts could look like someone who cared about the leak while he knew Alito had leaked the poorly written badly thought-out decision that held the names of the Four who "supported" it. I am opposed to the deep secrecy on the Court while deliberating on issues that are critical to our nation. Secrecy breeds bad behavior and poor decisions, and we have both on this overturn of Roe.
Traveling back in time to a period where I spent several eventful years in the 1st and 2nd grades. The school was a little-known edifice called Vetal elementary, sadly due to declining enrolment, my first school was closed in 2012. I went there through the years 1954 to 1955 before moving to a different school district. This memory dealt with my 1st-grade experience and a teacher that should have been teaching high school, Mrs. Slicteen. A brut of a woman that installed fear in every last one of us, little people, her name should have been Mrs. Strict-teen. It was a rather small class of about 20 socially lost children. Part of our daily routine was to enhance the development of our latent artistic ability. We drew pictures, made small items from modeling clay, and then fired them in a kiln to preserve our effort for prosperity, oddly enough I still have the ashtray I made for my mother even after all these years. In our small room, we also had a 50-gallon cardboard drum filled with a powdery stuff we added water to, and then we made things from the mushy material. This drum was about 4 feet tall, we had to stand on a step stool in order to fill our coffee cans with the gray powder that was always floating in the air like dust as we worked. At times when the drum was getting low on the medium we had to have one of our class mated hold our legs as we leaned over in an effort to fill our can. Once the can had the measured amount of powder we added water until the mixture was like a thick gray mud. On one occasion we were making puppets, Mrs. Slicteen asked us to bring a light bulb from home. Back then Detroit Edison had outlet stores all over the city, they gave light bulbs away for free all you had to do was bring in the metal base from the burnt-out bulb and you were given a new one. We took the old bulbs and covered them with the mud we had just cooked up in our coffee cans. Gently we formed the poop, as we called it, all over the outside of the glass bulb until we made a face. Eyes a nose and a mouth with nice lips, they looked like something Rod Serling would have appreciated. Once complete we put them aside to dry, which took several days. The next step was done by the teacher, for obvious reasons. She took the dried heads and gave them a good smack on the counter breaking the bulbs inside. The metal base and the broken glass was removed, this left us with a nice puppet head that needed a little paint and a skirt as a finishing touch. My end product was rather scary, at least to me. We spent the year, day in and day out, making stuff from the endless supply of gray powder. I look back on that time with mixed feelings, it was at that time when I met Sally Rhing, she had long dark hair and beautiful big curls that framed her pretty face. I would walk her home every day, weather permitting. Her father had a fish tank in the living room with a Cooley Loach that magically captured my imagination for the remainder of my adult life. Why the tale you may ask, the 50-gallon drum was filled with something I never forgot once we were told the name of its contents. Mrs. Slicteen was so very proud of her 50-gallon drum filled with "Powered Asbestos." What did Puck say about mortals? Or was that just a segment from one of my Mid-Summer Night's Dreams?
They probably intended to get someone to admit to leaking, thus taking the pressure off Alito (and Thomas, et al). That someone would have probably been rewarded handsomely with an anonymous donation to some "gofundme" account, or something...
Trudy, alas, the whole point was for it to look like a real investigation when Roberts knew well they would find nothing because he already knew Alito had done it. It is unclear if Roberts approved it at the time it happened. I would be curious to know if the Fab Four that Alito was intending to cement into supporting his poorly-written and argued decision through the leak were OK with it. They don't look good supporting such hogwash for their own personal ideologies.
Daniel, I must admit that I care. A whole lot of innocent Court staffers were held in suspicion for an act that one of the justices did. That is simply wrong. Of course it won't help to codify the right to abortion, but I hope considering this publicly may help people consider that the top secrecy related to court decision-making is a really bad idea. I want to hear more about the thinking or lack of thinking involved as justices mull over and discuss the issues since they often impact a huge number of people. Maybe a few of their "talks" can be totally private, but there needs to be more transparency, real transparency, not just play acting. Then, the first draft should be made available to the lawyers in the case so they can check out the legal justifications presented by both sides or rather, all sides. Then, the justices can again deliberate based on that series of discussions. No names should be affixed to the first or second drafts, although the authors can be identified. This is not an idea original to me, but I think it is a really good one. Maybe then we won't be as likely to get Medieval law and the rulings of witch-hunters to stand in place of our Constitution.
Justice Roberts seems like a wimp to me & I don’t believe he has the willingness or guts to devise a Code of Ethics for his Court! They certainly do need one but everyone knows they would never accept such a Code devised by Congress! How can the people push for such a measure??
Yes it can. I 'd start by expanding the court to 13 justices. And they would not be serving "life sentences". It's ridiculous to give anyone a "job for life". Set up a rotation so each President will get to nominate two justices.
Right more corrupt corporate lawyers is the answer!? How about we just get rid of the scum altogether? The whole judicial system is a scam. All corrupt ex-corporate lawyers who's only purpose is to provide a means of making a profit off the poor by imprisonment and to do what their masters have told them to do for them to get the position they are in!
That can't happen, but, if this country weren't in the depths of political corruption right now Thomas may well have been impeached (and his wife held accountable for her own crimes) and Alito may be investigated and impeached for his breach of ethics given the Hobby Lobby case. I completely believe that Alito leaked his Dobbs case to lock in the justices he had, which was four of them, he just needed two more. Alito should be impeached. I would like to see the court expanded but I truly believe overtly corrupt ones like Thomas and Alito should be removed absolutely.
The stuff in the media was not the real issue. Who paid his gambling debts? As a sitting court of appeals judge did he report all his liabilities? Did he fully disclose his political affiliations in his DC CT appointment?
With some others it's worse. Is a sitting justice an automaton for a cult? Are some justices more loyal to "natural law" i.e. church dogma, than to the Constitution?
Because the FBI failed to conduct a serious investigation despite 4500 tips it received in addition to her testimony. Frankly, after what happened to Anita Hill, I think it took an incredibly brave woman to testify as she did.
No, it's one of the three branches of our government, designed to spread power between three institutions for the maximum balance overall. ENLARGE the Supreme Court with two new Justice positions, or four (preferred, but Biden would be attacked for court packing). Nine is smaller than it has been in past decades (although I'm unwilling to look up when, this morning—go to google; I'm sure it's there). With eleven, the so-called conservative Justices would still outnumber the presumed "liberal" Justices, by one, and that would put Roberts on the spot. It would be largely acceptable until a few of them leave or die, and that gets us back to the essential crap shoot we've functioned in since the 1970s. By the way, our country is the first democracy designed to fit three historical paradigms: THREE: religion, hierarchy and authority (Court); FOUR: Individuaist, executive, hierarchy-lite, secular self-discipline (President); FIVE: "Don't rock the boat! Go along to get along; network, not hierarchy (Congress) Wanna know six and seven? One and two?
The Senate was a 50/50 split and so much action required a "super-majority"...Thanks to Sinema and Manchin, the Dems often couldn't even get 50 Senators to band together so that VP Harris could break the tie, let alone gather a super-majority.
But yes...you are correct about the advantage of having a record of those who voted against.
I suspected Alito, because it was his 'baby' and I think he is a despicable man unsuited to the position he occupies. He has no understanding /respect for the Constitution and zero empathy for the millions of people whose lives he has impacted negatively. The court itself has 'stepped in it' and lost respectability. They ignore the Constitution and remove a right that was established and hard won. They have lost respectability, kind of like the Catholic church! Cruel, without empathy, and harming so many.
Kristofarian ; It's unjust business that also mimics the Taliban. They are the American Taliban. Check out DeSantis in Florida. Dictating what is relevant or 'of value' and what is not, as far as history lessons, and science.
What about the billions of wild animals that have died & thousands of species that have become extinct at the hands of humans because of overpopulation, overconsumption, plundering of the Earth, deforestation, climate chaos, ecosystem collapse, marine degradation, pollution, radiation, poisoning of the environment, soil erosion, aquatic deterioration, desertification etc. Now that is a real tragedy! Have an open mind?
Tara, unless you personally have given birth against your will after being raped by a stranger after carrying the pregnancy to term and had the baby taken away from you,(the ultimate rape), please have respect for my valid opinion. If you do not believe in abortion don't have one. I believe that terminating an 8 celled blastocyst is not a full term baby. Look it up. Respect is a two way street. My mind is open to those who can open their mind to me. Respect is reciprocal, or non existent.
Every lawyer admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court must swear to abide by its ethics rules. Until the 9 justices do the same, and are subject to an independent ethics panel, the whole institution is just “justice theater”.
Exactly DZK, they SHOULD be impeached, traitors SHOULD NOT be seated in Congress. We actually have those laws on the books. Yet no action on the most heinous attack on our country! We put them in charge!
Seeking Reason ; 'we' did not put them in charge. The way our laws are written, it is understandably difficult to impeach. But they should not have been on the ballot in the first place. We need better vetting of our legislators and judges.
As long as the Federalist Society has its paws on SCOTUS is is detrimental that we seat more Judges in ‘24. We need to get the Senate and House seats in order to accomplish this so we need to get serious. More imperative after yesterdays debt ceiling outrage.
If Congress passed the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act which would, among other things, require the Court to adopt a binding code of conduct, the right-wing six would undoubtedly rule it unconstitutional on "originalist" grounds.
Of course, if they were really originalist, they'd declare their own role as determining whether a law is constitutional or not as unconstitutional as the Constitution did not give it to them.
"The Court’s marshal, Gail A. Curley, who oversaw the inquiry, said investigators had conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 employees, all of whom had denied being the source of the leak."
This more than suggests that the inquiry interviewed only those who were themselves in a position to leak the draft, and that investigators neglected to question all other, less privileged, court employees who still may very well have known who did the deed.
As such, it hardly qualifies as anything close to an exhaustive investigation.
Plus, it doesn’t appear that the Justices were interviewed... so if there were 126 interviews that came back clean, the logical next move would be to contact those who are no longer there and (obviously) take a look at the Big Boys. Something fishy...
Actually Santos is the current poster child for corruption, and at least a humorous one for the insane asylum that is the Republican Party. We all need a laugh as crying gets boring after a while.
The Supreme Court has already "drowned in disrepute." Roberts already has laid claim to the Roger B. Taney award. Alito, Thomas and the others have proved to be lousy historians on Second Amendment and other issues. And Alito in particular seems to have his head up the rear end of the 17thC. The court's majority, were their decisions not so serious, might be seen as judges from Gilbert and Sullivan. However, instead of a 'source of innocent merriment' they are perverting the arc of justice. I don't mind them worshiping the past in their private lives; I do object to them taking the rest of us there in their political decisions.
Alito told us all who he was when he yelled 'you lie' at Obama ! Ever since then I've considered him a low-life, and nothing has happened since to change my mind ! Scum on the SC !!!
Your reasoning makes sense. Additionally, by leaking the decision, and then announcing that whoever leaked it put the judges’ lives in danger, he could then play VICTIM and completely ignore the fact that his decision put the lives of countless women in danger by forcing them to continue life-threatening pregnancies. But with the leak, he becomes the victim instead of the heartless destroyer of women’s rights over their own bodies and life choices.
I don’t normally have the following attitude, but....our institutions are corrupt. Does it really matter who leaked an opinion when that opinion took away a woman’s right to control her own person? Don’t be distracted, dear readers.
Well, that's kinda the point: just because someone abuses the auspice of an office doesn't mean that person gets to say how that office is run forever thereafter (especially as the court - and the work that it has to do - are going to be around long after the petty politics of whoever leaked the opinion have run their course)...
Says a lot about the decline of a nation when even the SC can no longer be trusted ....
Waiting for Roberts, a hard-right partisan from the get-go, to assert leadership and get a grip on the several colossal and growing failures of SCOTUS will be waiting for Godot: he isn't going to show up, ever. It's long past time for Roberts to step out of the CJ role.
Alito: It's worth reading the New Yorker profile published last fall: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/05/justice-alitos-crusade-against-a-secular-america-isnt-over . (The article might be behind a paywall.) It seems that Alito has metamorphosed over the years into a bitter, angry old man intent on grinding the ultra-conservative axe.
Well said. And great metaphor on Waiting for Godot (Roberts). As far as I’ve gleaned, Roberts has been waiting for SCOTUS to be in extreme-right hands. New Yorker piece was very telling on Alito. He doesn’t seem happy with women in careers and not barefoot and pregnant.
I agree. But I also think they’ve feel freed and empowered to no longer be clandestine about their far right extremism. With Alito, the roots seem to stem from his Catholic conservatism and experience with the 1960’s civil rights and culture breakout of that 1950’s repression.
Alito started out pretty sour, but he's devolved even further. The same can be said of Thomas.
Who is angry here? Maybe all the babies in heaven that were never allowed to have their first breath!
Sorry, Tara. Women aren't incubators. If a woman doesn't want an embryo or fetus inside her, then she gets to remove it. Women are sentient. Fetuses are not.
Or maybe all the victims of forced births of unwanted, poorly cared for babies that became miserable, resentful children that became criminals & murderers by the time they reached adulthood.
Or maybe the billions of animals that were harmed or killed through human overpopulation, overconsumption & various anthropogenic environmental destruction.
Hardly news, since Bushie-Boy began the parade ..
The above 'reply' was printed. My initial comment was not.
Initial comments go directly to the bottom of the comment section, another change for the worse on this forum.
Thanks, Jaime. I did find it ..
It's been a really shitty wake up call. Everything you thought should've been working wasn't. We still have at least one new liar and cheat in Congress with Santos. What a disgrace.
alito is a poisonous traitor.
roberts is in an unusual position where he must daily confront the question: what's more important legacy versus wads of secret cash for betraying the american people's trust?
personally, i see roberts as a scumbag who will only do what serves his very short-term interests, legacy be damned.
To any reasonable degree of probability, Robert is right. Circumstantial evidence goes to Alito and his wife, who are involved in controversy over ANOTHER case. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/20/justice-alito-birth-control-leak-allegations-2014-supreme-court-00069603
Did Martha-Ann Alito furnish a verified statement? Would she be willing to voluntarily take a lie detector test to save her husband's reputation?
The Dobbs parties knew that Alito and his wife were culture warriors. IMHO the Supreme Court Bar (I was a member) is remiss in failing to file motions for disqualification. 28 U.S. Code § 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Is to the judge's knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding. At a minimum Roberts was obliged to acknowledge that there were bias issues.
Daniel, you are right that Roberts should have acknowledged bias, but he wanted Roe overturned too. He would not do that unless forced to do it through an ethics code he was expected to honor. There is none as far as I know that binds the SC justices to behave ethically. I suspect Alito did leak to his wife and she had contacts. They will not be questioned in our current political environment. Roberts' appointment of unqualified, inexperienced people to do the "investigation" is proof that he and now we know where the leak came from.
Aren't those that practice "law" required to behave ethically? Perhaps six judges are showing us that they adhere to a different code of ethics. Like those found in certain places in the Vatican.
Thank you Daniel, who can put pressure on the Supreme Court Bar? members of the Bar? Members of Congress? In spite of the vagary of Article III there must be some lawful path to at least chastisement, if not removal, of a Justice who is abusing her/his position. I know in State Courts even citizens can effect a recall of a judge on the basis of wrongful behavior.
Members of the bar have clients.
I personally know several US circuit court judges who resigned in face of an internal investigation. https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/other-forms/complaint-judicial-misconduct-or-disability
However no such procedure is available for justices.
Thank you, Daniel
There is no way to “punish” a Supreme Court Justice for an opinion. For behavior, a Justice can be removed vis impeachment. But impeaching a judge is difficult and rare. And a right wing justice will never be impeached in today’s political environment. This is why the lack of a code of conduct for the SCOTUS is so awful!
What if a SCOTUS justice is a criminal? What if the justice is incarcerated?
IMHO with respect to Thomas, within the realm of possibilities. 18 U.S. Code § 1621 - Perjury generally
Whoever—
(1)having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or
(2)in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;
is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 773; Pub. L. 88–619, § 1, Oct. 3, 1964, 78 Stat. 995; Pub. L. 94–550, § 2, Oct. 18, 1976, 90 Stat. 2534; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(I), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
Apparently, the U.S. Code you cited isn't enforced . Are there cases where justices have been disqualified?
Connie. Lots of judges but no justices - so far. It takes someone to file a motion.
Yes, Daniel, but who is the qualified someone?
Someone with a Supreme Court case where SCOTUS bias can be proven.
In other words a courageous attorney willing to make (or buck) history. LOL
Fay Reid; How about a woman who was a minor child 53 years ago and also a warde of the state, who was forced to give birth to a child she could not raise because she was 'an unfit mother' because of her rape victim status, poverty and minor child status? Said child taken from her, never to be seen again. Endless pain and harm done?
That was why Roe v Wade was passed nearly 70 years ago. However, based on Amendment X, I do understand why some of the Supreme Court Justices justified their decision based on 2 things, 1) there is not specific mention of abortion in the Constitution, 2) in fact there is no mention of women at all until you get to Amendment XIX, and that wasn't ratified until 8/18/1920. Remember until very, very late in the 19th Century, we (women) were considered as mere chattel (property) less value than a slave but down in the realm of horses and dogs. We were patted on the head and told we were good, proper little women, who did what daddy, brother, uncle, etc told us what to do and think, so naturally women were given no rights under the Constitution. The 28th Amendment as been ratified but not yet signed into law - shame on President Biden for this oversight. Anyway, back to abortion, any article not specifically mention in the Constitution "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Our job is to get more States to codify women's rights over their own bodies in all 50 States and to ensure in the future that any new State admitted to the Union recognizes women as human beings with the same rights as men. Kudos to California and Governor Newsom for starting this process within days of the overturn of Roe v Wade.
Thank you for the info.
Whether or not, any justice has been disqualified, I think we know other cases when they should have been.
There's so much other crap going on, cleaning up the SC is (sadly) low on the priority list. I still think term limits is the remedy.
Yes, the "founding fathers" determined that three branches of government should exist, creating a balance of power, duties, judicial review, and such. Since then, term limits have been placed on the executive branch only. How has that change impacted the nation? Perhaps you are right about term limits for the judicial ( and perhaps, legislative) branch.
speaking of Legacies:
there is NO Proof USSC CJ Roberts
is ANY Relation to Dread Pirate Roberts but
they're fervently checking DNA about as fast as they can.
.
please send Donations
to CJ Roberts' Fund
in Care of ME.
Girl Scientist, you are right about Alito and Roberts. I believe neither of them had much of a system of ethics by which they lived before even being nominated. I suspect this is a major reason each was nominated. Alito's scholarship is clearly wanting and we know his moral compass is not working. Roberts was a racist anti-civil rights guy for decades so I am not at all surprised he acts unethically while he mouths the words of "trying to find the truth." He knew the Marshalls would find nothing because it was not the staff who had a lot to risk if they leaked something. Roberts could look like someone who cared about the leak while he knew Alito had leaked the poorly written badly thought-out decision that held the names of the Four who "supported" it. I am opposed to the deep secrecy on the Court while deliberating on issues that are critical to our nation. Secrecy breeds bad behavior and poor decisions, and we have both on this overturn of Roe.
Alito, scholarship. Oxymoron!
Maybe so, but it's only been during my lifetime that all members of the Supreme Court have even been lawyers admitted to any bar.
Nothing to do with intelligence or honesty or ethics.
GrrlScientist ; Alito is a shifty eyed fink and woman hater.
Little did they know.
Donald Hodgins <silencenotbad@gmail.com>
9:47 PM (0 minutes ago)
Traveling back in time to a period where I spent several eventful years in the 1st and 2nd grades. The school was a little-known edifice called Vetal elementary, sadly due to declining enrolment, my first school was closed in 2012. I went there through the years 1954 to 1955 before moving to a different school district. This memory dealt with my 1st-grade experience and a teacher that should have been teaching high school, Mrs. Slicteen. A brut of a woman that installed fear in every last one of us, little people, her name should have been Mrs. Strict-teen. It was a rather small class of about 20 socially lost children. Part of our daily routine was to enhance the development of our latent artistic ability. We drew pictures, made small items from modeling clay, and then fired them in a kiln to preserve our effort for prosperity, oddly enough I still have the ashtray I made for my mother even after all these years. In our small room, we also had a 50-gallon cardboard drum filled with a powdery stuff we added water to, and then we made things from the mushy material. This drum was about 4 feet tall, we had to stand on a step stool in order to fill our coffee cans with the gray powder that was always floating in the air like dust as we worked. At times when the drum was getting low on the medium we had to have one of our class mated hold our legs as we leaned over in an effort to fill our can. Once the can had the measured amount of powder we added water until the mixture was like a thick gray mud. On one occasion we were making puppets, Mrs. Slicteen asked us to bring a light bulb from home. Back then Detroit Edison had outlet stores all over the city, they gave light bulbs away for free all you had to do was bring in the metal base from the burnt-out bulb and you were given a new one. We took the old bulbs and covered them with the mud we had just cooked up in our coffee cans. Gently we formed the poop, as we called it, all over the outside of the glass bulb until we made a face. Eyes a nose and a mouth with nice lips, they looked like something Rod Serling would have appreciated. Once complete we put them aside to dry, which took several days. The next step was done by the teacher, for obvious reasons. She took the dried heads and gave them a good smack on the counter breaking the bulbs inside. The metal base and the broken glass was removed, this left us with a nice puppet head that needed a little paint and a skirt as a finishing touch. My end product was rather scary, at least to me. We spent the year, day in and day out, making stuff from the endless supply of gray powder. I look back on that time with mixed feelings, it was at that time when I met Sally Rhing, she had long dark hair and beautiful big curls that framed her pretty face. I would walk her home every day, weather permitting. Her father had a fish tank in the living room with a Cooley Loach that magically captured my imagination for the remainder of my adult life. Why the tale you may ask, the 50-gallon drum was filled with something I never forgot once we were told the name of its contents. Mrs. Slicteen was so very proud of her 50-gallon drum filled with "Powered Asbestos." What did Puck say about mortals? Or was that just a segment from one of my Mid-Summer Night's Dreams?
Why did they investigate if the justices were not included in the interviews?? A sham and a waste of time.
They probably intended to get someone to admit to leaking, thus taking the pressure off Alito (and Thomas, et al). That someone would have probably been rewarded handsomely with an anonymous donation to some "gofundme" account, or something...
Trudy, alas, the whole point was for it to look like a real investigation when Roberts knew well they would find nothing because he already knew Alito had done it. It is unclear if Roberts approved it at the time it happened. I would be curious to know if the Fab Four that Alito was intending to cement into supporting his poorly-written and argued decision through the leak were OK with it. They don't look good supporting such hogwash for their own personal ideologies.
Exactly my point! WHO CARES?!? How is finding the one who leaked going to cofify Roe v Wade OR help American women and their bodily autonomy?
Daniel, I must admit that I care. A whole lot of innocent Court staffers were held in suspicion for an act that one of the justices did. That is simply wrong. Of course it won't help to codify the right to abortion, but I hope considering this publicly may help people consider that the top secrecy related to court decision-making is a really bad idea. I want to hear more about the thinking or lack of thinking involved as justices mull over and discuss the issues since they often impact a huge number of people. Maybe a few of their "talks" can be totally private, but there needs to be more transparency, real transparency, not just play acting. Then, the first draft should be made available to the lawyers in the case so they can check out the legal justifications presented by both sides or rather, all sides. Then, the justices can again deliberate based on that series of discussions. No names should be affixed to the first or second drafts, although the authors can be identified. This is not an idea original to me, but I think it is a really good one. Maybe then we won't be as likely to get Medieval law and the rulings of witch-hunters to stand in place of our Constitution.
It clearly confirms that the court is politically corrupt.
Justice Roberts seems like a wimp to me & I don’t believe he has the willingness or guts to devise a Code of Ethics for his Court! They certainly do need one but everyone knows they would never accept such a Code devised by Congress! How can the people push for such a measure??
Abolish the unsupreme court! If they think they are so perfect and do not need an ethics code, they do not belong above everyone else!
Oy. Third branch of government. They may be imperfect, but can be fixed.
Yes it can. I 'd start by expanding the court to 13 justices. And they would not be serving "life sentences". It's ridiculous to give anyone a "job for life". Set up a rotation so each President will get to nominate two justices.
Right more corrupt corporate lawyers is the answer!? How about we just get rid of the scum altogether? The whole judicial system is a scam. All corrupt ex-corporate lawyers who's only purpose is to provide a means of making a profit off the poor by imprisonment and to do what their masters have told them to do for them to get the position they are in!
That can't happen, but, if this country weren't in the depths of political corruption right now Thomas may well have been impeached (and his wife held accountable for her own crimes) and Alito may be investigated and impeached for his breach of ethics given the Hobby Lobby case. I completely believe that Alito leaked his Dobbs case to lock in the justices he had, which was four of them, he just needed two more. Alito should be impeached. I would like to see the court expanded but I truly believe overtly corrupt ones like Thomas and Alito should be removed absolutely.
Yes, and Kavanaugh never should have been seated.
FBI failed to update his background check.
The stuff in the media was not the real issue. Who paid his gambling debts? As a sitting court of appeals judge did he report all his liabilities? Did he fully disclose his political affiliations in his DC CT appointment?
With some others it's worse. Is a sitting justice an automaton for a cult? Are some justices more loyal to "natural law" i.e. church dogma, than to the Constitution?
Because the FBI failed to conduct a serious investigation despite 4500 tips it received in addition to her testimony. Frankly, after what happened to Anita Hill, I think it took an incredibly brave woman to testify as she did.
He had also lied at his previous confirmation.
so True and
when he Promised
Retribution for Dems'
'ruff treatment' he Recused
himself Right off the damn Court
.
Kavanaughtiest Maximus
is a Corporate wet dream.
My suggestion has always been to add 20-200 more "justices." It is ALREADY a bad joke, so let's MAKE IT a bad joke.
Sorry Daniel, Laurie is correct in saying the not so SCOTUS should be abolished!
No, it's one of the three branches of our government, designed to spread power between three institutions for the maximum balance overall. ENLARGE the Supreme Court with two new Justice positions, or four (preferred, but Biden would be attacked for court packing). Nine is smaller than it has been in past decades (although I'm unwilling to look up when, this morning—go to google; I'm sure it's there). With eleven, the so-called conservative Justices would still outnumber the presumed "liberal" Justices, by one, and that would put Roberts on the spot. It would be largely acceptable until a few of them leave or die, and that gets us back to the essential crap shoot we've functioned in since the 1970s. By the way, our country is the first democracy designed to fit three historical paradigms: THREE: religion, hierarchy and authority (Court); FOUR: Individuaist, executive, hierarchy-lite, secular self-discipline (President); FIVE: "Don't rock the boat! Go along to get along; network, not hierarchy (Congress) Wanna know six and seven? One and two?
If Congress passes a Bill they would have to dig very deep to declare it Unconstitutional...
The trick is getting the congress to do it.
Culture warriors control the House.
The Senate was a 50/50 split and so much action required a "super-majority"...Thanks to Sinema and Manchin, the Dems often couldn't even get 50 Senators to band together so that VP Harris could break the tie, let alone gather a super-majority.
But yes...you are correct about the advantage of having a record of those who voted against.
As good as that sounds , in practical terms it won't work...
They do however need a set of rules on Ethics and term limits...
Plus a permanent limit on the number of Justices...
And a hard fast rule on when a sitting P{resident get to replace one...
Precedents no longer mean anything when one side is willing to ignore them if it benefits themselves...
That sounds like a good idea James.
I suspected Alito, because it was his 'baby' and I think he is a despicable man unsuited to the position he occupies. He has no understanding /respect for the Constitution and zero empathy for the millions of people whose lives he has impacted negatively. The court itself has 'stepped in it' and lost respectability. They ignore the Constitution and remove a right that was established and hard won. They have lost respectability, kind of like the Catholic church! Cruel, without empathy, and harming so many.
Alito is arrogant and has nothing but contempt for the Americans he and his fellow ayatollahs rule.
Lori Brown ; With a few exceptions, yes, I agree.
Shirai Law brought to Us
by today's gop and the
Billionaires who spon-
sor them. it's Just
Business.
Kristofarian ; It's unjust business that also mimics the Taliban. They are the American Taliban. Check out DeSantis in Florida. Dictating what is relevant or 'of value' and what is not, as far as history lessons, and science.
you're correct: business
cum christo-fascism
rewriting history/
memory-holing
The Past
.
and 'science'?
as we all Know:
Faith trumpfs 'science':
IF we've been Carefully Taught
.
Not to think Critically.
I think Alito has a good understanding of the Constitution, but his obsessive contempt for democracy compels him to undermine the Constitution.
Jaime Ramirez; Yes, especially the part about separation of church and state!
Exactly!
What about the millions of babies that have died? Have an open mind?
What about the billions of wild animals that have died & thousands of species that have become extinct at the hands of humans because of overpopulation, overconsumption, plundering of the Earth, deforestation, climate chaos, ecosystem collapse, marine degradation, pollution, radiation, poisoning of the environment, soil erosion, aquatic deterioration, desertification etc. Now that is a real tragedy! Have an open mind?
Jaime ; Exactly!
Tara, unless you personally have given birth against your will after being raped by a stranger after carrying the pregnancy to term and had the baby taken away from you,(the ultimate rape), please have respect for my valid opinion. If you do not believe in abortion don't have one. I believe that terminating an 8 celled blastocyst is not a full term baby. Look it up. Respect is a two way street. My mind is open to those who can open their mind to me. Respect is reciprocal, or non existent.
Every lawyer admitted to the Bar of the Supreme Court must swear to abide by its ethics rules. Until the 9 justices do the same, and are subject to an independent ethics panel, the whole institution is just “justice theater”.
Lawrence Husick ; The fact that there is no code of ethics for the Supreme Court shows that it is a set up to allow them to be above the law. Period.
They can be impeached, but don't hold your breath.
Exactly DZK, they SHOULD be impeached, traitors SHOULD NOT be seated in Congress. We actually have those laws on the books. Yet no action on the most heinous attack on our country! We put them in charge!
Seeking Reason ; 'we' did not put them in charge. The way our laws are written, it is understandably difficult to impeach. But they should not have been on the ballot in the first place. We need better vetting of our legislators and judges.
Love your graphic (hamster wheel)
It's an existential comment!
Pigs can learn to fly ?
Good point.
The members each have bar membership.
Can collaterally attack their bar status. Make a record.
As long as the Federalist Society has its paws on SCOTUS is is detrimental that we seat more Judges in ‘24. We need to get the Senate and House seats in order to accomplish this so we need to get serious. More imperative after yesterdays debt ceiling outrage.
If Congress passed the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act which would, among other things, require the Court to adopt a binding code of conduct, the right-wing six would undoubtedly rule it unconstitutional on "originalist" grounds.
Of course, if they were really originalist, they'd declare their own role as determining whether a law is constitutional or not as unconstitutional as the Constitution did not give it to them.
Your last paragraph, Maureen, sez it All! sock it to me & US! 🙏
Thank you.
"The Court’s marshal, Gail A. Curley, who oversaw the inquiry, said investigators had conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 employees, all of whom had denied being the source of the leak."
This more than suggests that the inquiry interviewed only those who were themselves in a position to leak the draft, and that investigators neglected to question all other, less privileged, court employees who still may very well have known who did the deed.
As such, it hardly qualifies as anything close to an exhaustive investigation.
Plus, it doesn’t appear that the Justices were interviewed... so if there were 126 interviews that came back clean, the logical next move would be to contact those who are no longer there and (obviously) take a look at the Big Boys. Something fishy...
No. It was George Santos!
That is a slippery slope; we can't use go blaming Pinocchio for everything (who's next, the Easter Bunny? That trade unionist Santa Claus?)...
> = |
Actually Santos is the current poster child for corruption, and at least a humorous one for the insane asylum that is the Republican Party. We all need a laugh as crying gets boring after a while.
Enjoy his humor all you like - but please don't do it on my dime (think about the risk that the DNC took that led to those tears - not wise!)...
Yep, Alito.
The Supreme Court has already "drowned in disrepute." Roberts already has laid claim to the Roger B. Taney award. Alito, Thomas and the others have proved to be lousy historians on Second Amendment and other issues. And Alito in particular seems to have his head up the rear end of the 17thC. The court's majority, were their decisions not so serious, might be seen as judges from Gilbert and Sullivan. However, instead of a 'source of innocent merriment' they are perverting the arc of justice. I don't mind them worshiping the past in their private lives; I do object to them taking the rest of us there in their political decisions.
Alito told us all who he was when he yelled 'you lie' at Obama ! Ever since then I've considered him a low-life, and nothing has happened since to change my mind ! Scum on the SC !!!
If you refer to the SotU Address, that was a congressman from the ungreat state of South Carolina ..
Your reasoning makes sense. Additionally, by leaking the decision, and then announcing that whoever leaked it put the judges’ lives in danger, he could then play VICTIM and completely ignore the fact that his decision put the lives of countless women in danger by forcing them to continue life-threatening pregnancies. But with the leak, he becomes the victim instead of the heartless destroyer of women’s rights over their own bodies and life choices.
I don’t normally have the following attitude, but....our institutions are corrupt. Does it really matter who leaked an opinion when that opinion took away a woman’s right to control her own person? Don’t be distracted, dear readers.
Well, that's kinda the point: just because someone abuses the auspice of an office doesn't mean that person gets to say how that office is run forever thereafter (especially as the court - and the work that it has to do - are going to be around long after the petty politics of whoever leaked the opinion have run their course)...