maybe the case(s) have been attempted, but with zero ability to convince. I understand lots of folks make the argument all the time, but for the most part I agree with the assessment that this is mostly liberals' dissatisfied sour grapes reaction to being on the other side of the coin in terms of the balance of the USSC. Conservatives put up with a liberal court for decades and decades. They didn't whine about it, they didn't grab their torch and pitchforks to take the institution down . . . no, they figured out a long-term strategy to fix what ailed them and it eventually worked--much to liberals'/Democrats' chagrin. It is not conservatives' fault that liberals and Democrats are so bad at what they do.
Not this one. This is the correct ruling. There was no there there. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/...influence-on-social-media-content-moderation/ Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett cited the lack of any “concrete link” between the restrictions that the plaintiffs complained of and the conduct of government officials – and in any event, she concluded, a court order blocking communication between government officials and social media companies likely would not have any effect on decision-making by those platforms, which can continue to enforce their policies. The strongest showing, she continued, came from Jill Hines, a health-care activist who is the co-director of a group that advocated against COVID-19 vaccine mandates and mask mandates. Although Facebook took various actions with regard to social media posts by Hines and her group, including restricting her account after she posted an article about increased rates of myocarditis in teenagers who received the COVID-19 vaccine, Barrett acknowledged, “Facebook was targeting her pages before almost all of its communications with the White House and the CDC, which weakens the inference that her subsequent restrictions are likely traceable to ‘government-coerced enforcement’ of Facebook’s policies.”
You're focusing solely on expanding the court, which is a relatively recent idea (though not new). Both liberals and conservatives have argued against lifetime appointments for judges and the President's role in selecting them (with a 50-vote threshold, they aren't as robust as they used to be). Additionally, many people are frustrated with the millions in gifts accepted by some justices and the lack of strong ethical standards for the highest court. Even my conservative family members are unhappy with Thomas accepting those gifts.
again, Thomas accepting gifts may reflect poor judgment on his part, and might even be cause to initiate impeachment proceedings. But that is separate from his legal writing and jurisprudence. And as far as I know, no one has yet made a convincing enough argument that his transgressions warrant removal from the court.
it's all so tiresome the left's court-packing/corruption arguments are simply pretenses to find an endrun around rulings they don't agree with FDR tried to pack the court for the exact same reason
It cannot be separated, and that's the problem. That's why we have ethical standards that the highest court is expected to uphold voluntarily, although some clearly do not. For example, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas faced controversy over financial ties (over $20k, which he returned the same year to avoid apparent impropriety, and he also recused himself from cases involving the payer) that compromised his judicial independence. This led to calls for his removal by the Chief Justice, the POTUS, and others, ultimately resulting in his resignation. In contrast, despite scrutiny over accepting millions in gifts, Clarence Thomas has not faced removal due to insufficient political support. Precedent strongly supports the argument for accountability, but I also recognize that today's highly partisan political environment is markedly different from that of 50 years ago. Anyhow, I value ethics highly, and it's a clear case for me.
I don't think the left makes up 50-70% of the public. 2024: 70% think justices are not independent, but ideological. Gallup on trust and confidence of the Supreme Court: 2022-2023: 21% not at all, 32% not very much; total - 53%
here is a fairly even-handed overview that explains why the issue with Thomas is not so cut-and-dry: https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...at-gifts-must-supreme-court-justices-disclose
Man, conservatives tried to burn SCOTUS down during the progressive Warren Court era. I wasn't alive for this, but everything I've read says most people wanted him impeached, wanted to change the court, etc.
link should work for everyone https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-v-...d3uwzgn6zkb&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink A Supreme Court Triumph for Trial by Jury A 6-3 majority in SEC v. Jarkesy strikes a blow for liberty against the administrative state by ruling that federal agencies can’t deny defendants their day in federal court. By The Editorial Board June 27, 2024 at 5:39 pm ET The Supreme Court on Thursday ducked a decision on Idaho’s abortion law, which as usual is getting all the press. But the day’s more important story for American liberty is the 6-3 majority’s landmark decision (SEC v. Jarkesy) limiting the power of administrative agencies to charge fraud cases in their own tribunals. Hedge-fund founder George Jarkesy argued that a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act letting the Securities and Exchange Commission seek penalties administratively for securities fraud violated the Seventh Amendment’s right to trial by jury. The six conservative Justices agreed based on the Seventh Amendment’s text and history. The Seventh Amendment says that in “Suits at common law . . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.” Chief Justice John Roberts notes in his majority opinion that securities fraud resembles a traditional common law claim by an injured party against a defendant for damages. “Both target the same basic conduct: misrepresenting or concealing material facts,” the Chief explains. Another similarity: the SEC’s monetary penalties for wrongdoing. “While monetary relief can be legal or equitable, money damages are the prototypical common law remedy,” the Chief notes. “What determines whether a monetary remedy is legal is if it is designed to punish or deter the wrongdoer, or, on the other hand, solely to ‘restore the status quo.’” The Court’s decision means most complaints by agencies seeking penalties will have to be charged in federal courts, where defendants enjoy more procedural rights including to legal discovery. Agencies also won’t benefit from a home-court advantage. They win nearly every case in their own tribunals, as you might expect. The Chief notes that the Court has provided limited exceptions to the right to a trial by jury in a “class of cases concerning ‘public rights,’” such as public benefits (e.g. disability payments), immigration law, and collection of revenue. But as the Chief acknowledges, “the Court’s opinions governing this exception have not always spoken in precise terms.” Alas, the Court didn’t clear up all of its precedential fog in Jarkesy. But the Chief stressed that “even with respect to matters that arguably fall within the scope of the ‘public rights’ doctrine, the presumption is in favor of Article III courts.” The three liberals argue the opposite. They assert that the Constitution imposes no limits on the government’s power to seek civil penalties outside Article III courts. Their dissent accuses the conservatives of mounting “a power grab” by prescribing “artificial constraints on what modern-day adaptable governance must look like.” In other words, the Constitution must adapt to modern progressive political priorities. As the Chief rejoins, “the dissent would permit Congress to concentrate the roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury in the hands of the Executive Branch. That is the very opposite of the separation of powers that the Constitution demands.” This would also deprive Americans of due process that the separation of powers is designed to safeguard. Justice Neil Gorsuch is unforgiving about the dissent in his biting concurrence, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. He calls it “astonishing” and says the dissent’s underlying complaint is with the “Constitution’s revolutionary promise of popular oversight of government officials—and with those judges who would honor that promise.” He calls the dissent “all the more puzzling considering how regularly they have argued against that sort of sweeping concentration of governmental power.” And he quotes them chapter and persuasive verse. Perhaps the puzzle is solved if you understand that defending the modern administrative state has become a core progressive cause. “People like Mr. Jarkesy may be unpopular. Perhaps even rightly so: The acts he allegedly committed may warrant serious sanctions,” Justice Gorsuch adds. “But that should not obscure what is at stake in his case or others like it. While incursions on old rights may begin in cases against the unpopular, they rarely end there.” Liberals used to believe that too. Appeared in the June 28, 2024, print edition as 'A Triumph for Trial by Jury'. [/S]
Thx, read that before. I recognize there are different opinions, and in today's environment, I might be on the extreme side. My stance is simply based on one principle (ethics) that is very clear to me. It's not just applicable to Supreme Court Justices, but to every government position, especially those in leadership positions or positions of strong influence/power. It's an ideal that has certainly seen its ups and downs in support, and that's why I'm contemplating the idea of an AI-based government. Of course, we are nowhere near ready for that today, both technologically and in terms of acceptance, but I digress.
this dovetails nicely with the realization from last night's debate that unelected bureaucrats have far too much power over us
