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

Sure, but at the end of the day, is anything gonna happen? No, so many people probably just shrug their shoulders

hard to be invested when u know there won’t be any consequences

 

said Uncle Thomas is getting flown out like an IG thot and is a NFT

 

Pelosi and half of congress says hello.

Oh. You said 'caught'

 

No one is claiming the supreme court has become increasingly partisan (well, except for the partisans on the supreme court).

• Justice Amy Coney Barrett is offended by those questioning the impartiality of the Supreme Court. In recent remarks delivered at the University of Louisville, Justice Amy Coney Barrett pushed back against media characterizations of the court’s decision-making as politically motivated, insisting that “judicial philosophies are not the same as political parties.” She urged the public and the media “to evaluate what the court is doing on its own terms,” noting the distinction between criticizing the court’s reasoning and accusing the justices of “acting in a partisan manner.”
• “When you live in a polarized political environment, people tend to see everything in those terms. That’s not how we at the court function and the results in our cases do not suggest otherwise,” said Roberts before hundreds in attendance at the Temple Emanu-El Streicker Center in Manhattan.

That is why this court is so dangerous. A 6-3 imbalance reflecting the hyperpartisan nature of the current court makeup will set back America decades. Of course, the court is over-tilted to the right, so no complaints from republicans/conservatives/right wingers. But no one should then feign shock when the majority of Americans lose faith in the American judicial system and especially in the USSC.

This opinion piece discusses how to rein in a hyperpartisan justice system.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2022/03/23/how-to-rein-in-partisan-supreme-court-justices/

 

Suffering is guaranteed. Misery is a choice.

 

related

The Meaning of Mood

https://www.econlib.org/archives/2015/12/the_meaning_of_2.html

 

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court has to be "balanced "

That's the first problem with the criticism. It's not based in anything.

You might as well say the Legislative branch is supposed to be balanced and the president can't have a political philosophy.

 

Exactly. Accusing people of unethical behavior without evidence is not a good practice. Today's politics have become more focused on team loyalty than actual evidence. In the past, it was important to have evidence before making accusations. It is now too easy and tempting to think that all politicians are bad, which have lead to false equivalencies such as believing that Biden is just as bad as Trump or that DeSantis is just as bad as Trump. Some people, including you, diffuse actual horrible behavior by claiming that everyone is equally bad, and some even do it intentionally to excuse bad behavior (such as believing Trump is acceptable because the other side is just as bad).

Now that a number of Supreme Court justices have unethical behaviors, you are doing the same again. They all were always "bad", without any evidence. Whatever the reasons, it's diffusing away from actual reported unethical behaviors of the two Supreme Court Justices.

 

The Constitution doesn’t say the court has to be balanced ideologically but it does say that judges have to have some ethical standards.

In the case of Clarence Thomas and there is an argument for impeachment under the Emoluments clause.

 

The Supreme Court is doing what conservatives have decried for decades - legislating from the bench.

They are supposed to be an equal part of gov't, not the supreme decider of everything and determining the fates of millions of people at their political whim.

It was a mistake not to expand the court and delegitimize it. It's become a tool of the far right to challenge everything they don't like.

 

Two different subjects. I have said Thomas should face consequences for not reporting gifts

 

They don't GAF. They will use cheap and free damage control to soften blows when they overturn more rulings and precedents by decree.

 

that's an admirable position

 

Thoughts and prayers?

 

"I just want to talk policy."

 

That makes it okay.

The Constitution also doesn't say the Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution. But here we are.