Justice Clarence Thomas has secretly accepted luxury trips from a major Republican donors

While it is about reporting and disclosures, it’s not about the reporting and disclosures.

A Supreme Court Justice is in the pocket of a rich man. It’s about that. #idiots

 

People flipped the **** out about Hunter Biden living in one of Joe's houses and paying rent and upkeep. These same people are defending Clarence when a Billionaire buys houses from him. The Billionaire lets Clarence's mom live there rent free, pays for upkeep, etc. And Clarence doesn't report any of this? It just so happens the Billionaire didn't give a **** enough to become Clarence's friend until after Clarence becomes a Supreme Court Justtice.

 

Well yea but it's not like the conservatives r gonna do anything about either of these things. U see os doing his usual whataboutism overload of text

 

nice phrasing

 

Nope, no one is saying he’s been bought.

 

Trump is promising more anti-abortion jurists. Just what suburban women are calling for.

Of course out of the other side of his mouth, Trump is criticizing the Rs for their hardline abortion stances.

 

Seems honesty is a minimum requirement to be a USSC justice, no?

 

Com on man, even though Crow may not have had direct business with the court, the one thing all the friends have in common is the far-right ideology which is in front of the court on a regular basis. The man has been tainted since the Anita Hill cover up

Hell, I know I have friends offering to buy by mom's house, making huge improvements for her and then letting her live there rent free.......that kind of stuff happens all the time and the funny thing is my friends don't want a dam thing in return, they just have huge hearts

 

Another one...

 

All nine justices, in a rare step, on Tuesday released a joint statement reaffirming their voluntary adherence to a general code of conduct but rebutting proposals for independent oversight, mandatory compliance with ethics rules and greater transparency in cases of recusal.

The implication, though not expressly stated, is that the court unanimously rejects legislation proposed by Democrats seeking to impose on the justices the same ethics obligations applied to all other federal judges.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-s...-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921

So they're basically showing us exactly why more oversight is needed.

[now that you've read 2 minutes of real news, please return to your transgendery wokey culture warry bulls!!ttery]

 

Executive Summary

• During his 2005 confirmation hearings, John Roberts emphasized his respect for Supreme Court precedent, affirmed that flaws in a precedent are “not enough...to justify revisiting it,” and underscored “the values of respect for precedent, evenhandedness, predictability, stability.”
  
  
• Chief Justice Roberts’s frequent votes to overturn precedent, however, are wholly inconsistent with his testimony at his confirmation hearing that he would respect past Supreme Court rulings.
  
  
• During his During his 14 years as Chief Justice, Roberts presided over 21 precedent-overturning cases and voted to overturn precedent in 17 of them (81%), making him the second-most frequent member of the majority in precedent-overturning cases. Only Justice Thomas has been a more frequent member of the majority in such cases (90%).
  
  
• Nor is Chief Justice Roberts’s voting record in precedent-overturning cases ideologically balanced. Quite to the contrary, his track record in such cases is among the most partisan of any Supreme Court Justice in the modern era.
  
  
• Fifteen of the 21 precedent-overturning cases that Roberts presided over ended in split 5-4 decisions with liberal and conservative blocs aligned against one another. In these 15 ideologically-charged cases, Roberts’s voting record lines up almost perfectly with his partisanship. He voted to overturn precedent in all 11 of the 15 cases with a conservative outcome, and in just 1 of the 4 cases with a liberal outcome (25%).
  
  
• In the 15 precedent-overturning cases with partisan implications, in other words, Justice Roberts voted for a conservative outcome 14 times (93%).
  
  
• Chief Justice Roberts is one of only two justices since 1946 to support 100% of decisions overturning precedent that led to conservative outcomes.
  
  
• Roberts’s record in precedent-overturning cases is the second-most conservative among 37 justices who have ruled in at least 5 precedent-overturning cases since 1946. With 84% conservative votes in precedent-overturning cases, Roberts only trails Justice Alito’s 88%.
  
  
• While the frequency of Roberts’s votes to overturn precedent to achieve conservative outcomes alone undermines his reputation for moderation, a qualitative assessment of these rulings reveals the extent of the impact of his ideological rulings.
  
  
• Roberts has voted to overturn precedent to eviscerate a wide range of protections and rights involving campaign finance, reproductive health, workers’ rights, gun safety, affirmative action, and procedural justice, and and voted against overturning precedent when doing so would lead to enhancing rights such as marriage equality.

 

A Right-Wing Rout: What the “Roberts Five” Decisions Tell Us About the Integrity of Today’s Supreme Court

The pattern is unmistakable and troubling. What makes it all the more troubling is how often the conservatives abandoned so-called “conservative” judicial philosophies to reach the desired outcome. Members of the conservative wing had assured senators at their confirmation hearings that they would simply “call balls and strikes,”[8] “follow the law of judicial precedent,”[9] and respect the “strong principle” of stare decisis as a limitation on the Court.[10] Once confirmed, they discarded these doctrines when they proved inconvenient to the outcomes the Roberts Five desired. Even the pet conservative doctrine of “originalism” was ignored when necessary. And doctrines about modesty and respect for decisions by elected members of Congress collapsed. In fact, as the Appendix at the end of this Issue Brief catalogues, in nearly 55 percent of the 73 cases, the conservative majority disregarded one or more of the following judicial principles: (1) precedent or stare decisis; (2) judicial restraint; (3) originalism; (4) textualism; or (5) aversion to appellate fact finding.

Libertarians faint.

 

But but but... "there are no republican judges..."

 

Interns have been en fuego with their photo selections recently.

 

if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention. (or you're in a cult)