US Supreme Court Justices grumble

[lpetrich]

Dissension at the Supreme Court as justices take their anger public - CNNPolitics

Supreme Court justices have revealed a new level of defensiveness and anger in recent weeks, showing irritation with public expectations, the news media and one another.

The extraordinary public display extends beyond any single justice or case, although the majority's decision to let a Texas near-ban on abortions take effect has plainly triggered much of the consternation.

What did they expect?

On Thursday, Samuel Alito became the fifth of the nine justices to speak out, denouncing critics he said were seeking to portray the court as "sneaky" and "sinister" in an attempt "to intimidate" the justices.

Alito told a Notre Dame Law School audience that the court has been wrongly cast as "a dangerous cabal ... deciding important issues in a novel, secretive, improper way, in the middle of the night."

Then Amy Coney Barrett's speech at the McConnell Center of the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell himself introduced her, at that place that was named after him. He had successfully obstructed Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, something that he once chuckled over. He also got ACB in the court shortly before the Nov-2020 election.

"My goal today is to convince you that the court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks," Barrett told the audience. "The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results of decisions," she said, according to local media reports at a speech where no audio or video recordings were allowed. "It leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong based on whether she liked the results of the decision."

If they act like partisan hacks, then they deserve to be called partisan hacks.

Justice Clarence Thomas at the Notre Dame Law School last month:

"I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preferences," Thomas said. "If they think you're anti-abortion or something personally, they think that's the way you'll always come out."

Self-pity.

Justice Stephen Breyer is promoting a new book, and he also spoke out.

The senior liberal has urged audiences not to take such confidence for granted. He also had urged people not to see the justices as "junior-varsity politicians."

Breyer, too, has criticized journalists and politicians for identifying justices by the presidents who appointed them and their political parties. The Bill Clinton appointee also argues that the current 6-3 split at the high court does not reflect politics or ideology but rather jurisprudential methods.

Is that serious? The conservative Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents and the liberal ones by Democratic ones.

Decisions in closely watched cases often follow the familiar lines. In the 2020-21 term, the six conservative justices (over liberal dissent) narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and ruled against union organizers on agricultural land. The recent disputes regarding abortion, the eviction moratorium and asylum policy also split the justices largely by ideological and political affiliation.

 

[lpetrich]

Of all the recent remarks by justices, Alito's were the most pointed and surprising. It is unusual for a justice to engage in such an extended public defense of internal procedures.

Then about the "shadow docket"

Alito tried to make the case that critics had wrongly cast the justices' handling of emergency requests as sinister and threatening. He said they act in "the dead of night" because filings come to them late. He said the justices are not "so deluded" that they think they can "sneak" through orders without detection.

Alito also scoffed at attention members of Congress were putting on the so-called shadow docket and the Texas case.

Senator Dick Durbin D-IL, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, expressed skepticism at these Justices' claims that they make decisions in an apolitical manner, noting that during the Trump years, the court favored the admin in its emergency orders.

Speaking to his audience a day later, Alito attributed "political talk" and criticism to "unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution."

 

[ideologyhunter]

We can expect a lot more of this, because the court majority is Christian Right in its leanings and they will continue to behave like a parochial tribunal while pretending that their leanings are baked into our laws. Alito made a lot of noise recently (I think to the Federalist Society) about the erosion of religious liberty in the U.S. -- this while he's part of a court which gives religious plaintiffs victory after victory, giving religious entities exemptions from laws the rest of us follow (taxation, health mandates, antidiscrimination mandates.) A lot of behavior is now privileged as long as you can claim that your favorite supernatural beliefs compel it. How these poor Christians are surviving under the evil onslaught of the liberals, I can't tell.

 

[ZiprHead]

Dissension at the Supreme Court as justices take their anger public - CNNPolitics

What did they expect?

Then Amy Coney Barrett's speech at the McConnell Center of the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell himself introduced her, at that place that was named after him. He had successfully obstructed Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, something that he once chuckled over. He also got ACB in the court shortly before the Nov-2020 election.

"My goal today is to convince you that the court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks," Barrett told the audience. "The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results of decisions," she said, according to local media reports at a speech where no audio or video recordings were allowed. "It leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong based on whether she liked the results of the decision."

Is she trying to gaslight us or herself?

 

[TomC]

"My goal today is to convince you that the court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks," Barrett told the audience.

Did she anywhere address the degree to which McConnell's behavior concerning Garland and her influenced our opinions on that subject?
Tom

ETA ~If not, she just demonstrated that she is a political hack.~

 

[Elixir]

There is no more sure sign that Trump has re-made the SCOTUS in his own image, than the fact that they are now blubbering in self pity, whining about how unfair it is that they are being vilified for failing to do their job.
I have lived through a lot of different iterations of The Court, but none of them has ever suffered this kind of loss of demeanor, dignity and respect.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is no more sure sign that Trump has re-made the SCOTUS in his own image, than the fact that they are now blubbering in self pity, whining about how unfair it is that they are being vilified for failing to do their job.
I have lived through a lot of different iterations of The Court, but none of them has ever suffered this kind of loss of demeanor, dignity and respect.

Not Trump, the GOP. Trump didn't give a fuck who went on the court.

 

[TomC]

There is no more sure sign that Trump has re-made the SCOTUS in his own image, than the fact that they are now blubbering in self pity, whining about how unfair it is that they are being vilified for failing to do their job.
I have lived through a lot of different iterations of The Court, but none of them has ever suffered this kind of loss of demeanor, dignity and respect.

Not Trump, the GOP. Trump didn't give a fuck who went on the court.

I'm with you on Gorsuch. But I think Barrett was a calculated political appointment made because Trump was such a bad president he'd need loyalty on SCOTUS to avoid the consequences of his behavior.
Tom

ETA ~Trump and his supporters, like McConnell.~

 

[lpetrich]

Americans no longer have faith in the US supreme court. That has justices worried | Russ Feingold | The Guardian

Our highest court is facing a legitimacy crisis and is in desperate need of reform. And yet, due to the deadlock that seems to be Congress these days, I too often hear the rebuke to US supreme court reform, “None of these reforms will happen, so what is the point of talking about them?”

This defeatist argument fails to recognize a pivotal audience who surely hears the growing public calls for urgent reform – the supreme court itself.

We need only look to the number of justices who have felt the need recently to speak up on behalf of the court, in an attempt to justify its egregious abuse of judicial norms and processes, to know the justices are listening.

 

[Toni]

Dissension at the Supreme Court as justices take their anger public - CNNPolitics

What did they expect?

Then Amy Coney Barrett's speech at the McConnell Center of the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell himself introduced her, at that place that was named after him. He had successfully obstructed Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, something that he once chuckled over. He also got ACB in the court shortly before the Nov-2020 election.

"My goal today is to convince you that the court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks," Barrett told the audience. "The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results of decisions," she said, according to local media reports at a speech where no audio or video recordings were allowed. "It leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong based on whether she liked the results of the decision."

If they act like partisan hacks, then they deserve to be called partisan hacks.

Justice Clarence Thomas at the Notre Dame Law School last month:

"I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preferences," Thomas said. "If they think you're anti-abortion or something personally, they think that's the way you'll always come out."

Self-pity.

Justice Stephen Breyer is promoting a new book, and he also spoke out.

The senior liberal has urged audiences not to take such confidence for granted. He also had urged people not to see the justices as "junior-varsity politicians."

Breyer, too, has criticized journalists and politicians for identifying justices by the presidents who appointed them and their political parties. The Bill Clinton appointee also argues that the current 6-3 split at the high court does not reflect politics or ideology but rather jurisprudential methods.

Is that serious? The conservative Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents and the liberal ones by Democratic ones.

Decisions in closely watched cases often follow the familiar lines. In the 2020-21 term, the six conservative justices (over liberal dissent) narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and ruled against union organizers on agricultural land. The recent disputes regarding abortion, the eviction moratorium and asylum policy also split the justices largely by ideological and political affiliation.

To be fair, it is wrong to criticize other court members over the appointment of ACB or Kavanaugh. As repugnant as they both are.

 

[ZiprHead]

Chief Justice Roberts warns of threats to judges in year-end report

Roberts did not mention the court’s recent rulings or ethics controversies in his year-end message, but he did lament the killings of state judges and family members of federal judges in recent decades as examples of the rising dangers facing judicial officers.
“These tragic events highlight the vulnerability of judges who sign their names to the decisions they render each day and return home each night to communities, where they remain involved as neighbors, volunteers, and concerned citizens,” Roberts wrote. “Judges cannot hide, nor should they.”

Roberts also warned of tactics that fall short of violence, including disappointed litigants urging people on the internet to contact a judge, others releasing judges’ personal information and activist groups posting the locations of judges for the purpose of protests.

Roberts did not mention public officials by name, but he said some had tried to undermine rulings by falsely claiming decisions were motivated by political bias. He also wrote that disinformation about rulings — often spread on social media — was a major problem requiring more civic education.
The Supreme Court is at a crossroads after facing a turbulent year and on the eve of what could be another as President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

That's what happens when you try to pass bullshit off as chocolate pudding.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'm just so absolutely disappointed...

The defenses offered seem shameless in a way, worded so as to say "what the fuck are you gonna do about it?"

 

[laughing dog]

Highly paid federal employees with lifetime employment and no rules governing their conduct and no boss who flaunt their appearances of conflict of interest whine anout public perception?
LOL.

 

[Jarhyn]

Highly paid federal employees with lifetime employment and no rules governing their conduct and no boss who flaunt their appearances of conflict of interest whine anout public perception?
LOL.

And unto the ears of green plumbers.

 

[lostone]

There is no more sure sign that Trump has re-made the SCOTUS in his own image, than the fact that they are now blubbering in self pity, whining about how unfair it is that they are being vilified for failing to do their job.
I have lived through a lot of different iterations of The Court, but none of them has ever suffered this kind of loss of demeanor, dignity and respect.

How about the 'Impeach Earl Warren' and so forth Right Wing complaints about so-called 'activist judges' in the 50s and 60s?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Loper Bright was a massive undercutting of the Executive Branch. By the same folks that said the President is effectively a monarch.

Tgus court breaks presedence like Patrons at a Skyline Chili break wind. They haven't cared about standing and worse yet, they have over stepped cases, extrapolating larger outcomes entirely outside of the Court's general protocol.

 

[Elixir]

There is no more sure sign that Trump has re-made the SCOTUS in his own image, than the fact that they are now blubbering in self pity, whining about how unfair it is that they are being vilified for failing to do their job.
I have lived through a lot of different iterations of The Court, but none of them has ever suffered this kind of loss of demeanor, dignity and respect.

How about the 'Impeach Earl Warren' and so forth Right Wing complaints about so-called 'activist judges' in the 50s and 60s?

The RW abased themselves if memory serves, and the Earl Warren Court is not remembered as lacking courage or independence, or for its members being corrupted with millions in “gifts” from American oligarchs.
My memories of the Court in the 1950s are nonexistent, but I remember from the early 60s. Those memories don’t include the kind of corruption, shame and obeisance to the President that we have now.

 

[lostone]

There is no more sure sign that Trump has re-made the SCOTUS in his own image, than the fact that they are now blubbering in self pity, whining about how unfair it is that they are being vilified for failing to do their job.
I have lived through a lot of different iterations of The Court, but none of them has ever suffered this kind of loss of demeanor, dignity and respect.

How about the 'Impeach Earl Warren' and so forth Right Wing complaints about so-called 'activist judges' in the 50s and 60s?

The RW abased themselves if memory serves, and the Earl Warren Court is not remembered as lacking courage or independence, or for its members being corrupted with millions in “gifts” from American oligarchs.
My memories of the Court in the 1950s are nonexistent, but I remember from the early 60s. Those memories don’t include the kind of corruption, shame and obeisance to the President that we have now.

All of that true, and in my opinion, the Warren court was the best court for democracy and human rights that we have ever had, but it is also true that the Warren court was vilified by the Right.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no more sure sign that Trump has re-made the SCOTUS in his own image, than the fact that they are now blubbering in self pity, whining about how unfair it is that they are being vilified for failing to do their job.
I have lived through a lot of different iterations of The Court, but none of them has ever suffered this kind of loss of demeanor, dignity and respect.

How about the 'Impeach Earl Warren' and so forth Right Wing complaints about so-called 'activist judges' in the 50s and 60s?

The RW abased themselves if memory serves, and the Earl Warren Court is not remembered as lacking courage or independence, or for its members being corrupted with millions in “gifts” from American oligarchs.
My memories of the Court in the 1950s are nonexistent, but I remember from the early 60s. Those memories don’t include the kind of corruption, shame and obeisance to the President that we have now.

All of that true, and in my opinion, the Warren court was the best court for democracy and human rights that we have ever had, but it is also true that the Warren court was vilified by the Right.

Well, they always wanted to use the judiciary to enforce an agenda, and this clear and public bad faith messaging is the widest and most effective ways to disseminate that message.

 

[NotreDame15]

Dissension at the Supreme Court as justices take their anger public - CNNPolitics

Supreme Court justices have revealed a new level of defensiveness and anger in recent weeks, showing irritation with public expectations, the news media and one another.

The extraordinary public display extends beyond any single justice or case, although the majority's decision to let a Texas near-ban on abortions take effect has plainly triggered much of the consternation.

What did they expect?

On Thursday, Samuel Alito became the fifth of the nine justices to speak out, denouncing critics he said were seeking to portray the court as "sneaky" and "sinister" in an attempt "to intimidate" the justices.

Alito told a Notre Dame Law School audience that the court has been wrongly cast as "a dangerous cabal ... deciding important issues in a novel, secretive, improper way, in the middle of the night."

Then Amy Coney Barrett's speech at the McConnell Center of the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Mitch McConnell himself introduced her, at that place that was named after him. He had successfully obstructed Barack Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, something that he once chuckled over. He also got ACB in the court shortly before the Nov-2020 election.

"My goal today is to convince you that the court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks," Barrett told the audience. "The media, along with hot takes on Twitter, report the results of decisions," she said, according to local media reports at a speech where no audio or video recordings were allowed. "It leaves the reader to judge whether the court was right or wrong based on whether she liked the results of the decision."

If they act like partisan hacks, then they deserve to be called partisan hacks.

Justice Clarence Thomas at the Notre Dame Law School last month:

"I think the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preferences," Thomas said. "If they think you're anti-abortion or something personally, they think that's the way you'll always come out."

Self-pity.

Justice Stephen Breyer is promoting a new book, and he also spoke out.

The senior liberal has urged audiences not to take such confidence for granted. He also had urged people not to see the justices as "junior-varsity politicians."

Breyer, too, has criticized journalists and politicians for identifying justices by the presidents who appointed them and their political parties. The Bill Clinton appointee also argues that the current 6-3 split at the high court does not reflect politics or ideology but rather jurisprudential methods.

Is that serious? The conservative Justices were appointed by Republican Presidents and the liberal ones by Democratic ones.

Decisions in closely watched cases often follow the familiar lines. In the 2020-21 term, the six conservative justices (over liberal dissent) narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and ruled against union organizers on agricultural land. The recent disputes regarding abortion, the eviction moratorium and asylum policy also split the justices largely by ideological and political affiliation.

If they act like partisan hacks, then they deserve to be called partisan hacks.

What do you mean by “partisan hacks”?

What specifically did “they” do that constitutes as “partisan hack”?

Or is this essentially “partisan hacks” because you dislike or disagree with the opinion? The Left and Right are known for deriding opinions of the court as “partisan” because of, ostensibly for some but in fact for others, disapproval of the decision.