Clarence Thomas corruption

[Copernicus]

Even though that decision was 7-1, we don't know what influence and pressure Alito exerted on the other 8 members to swing matters in the direction of his patron. Moreover, we don't know what information may have flowed from him to his friends in terms of what buttons to push during their presentation of the case before the Court. These few justices have immense power, and they can influence each other's thinking on how to weigh the issues.

I really think that 9 lifetime justices running the Supreme Court of a nation like ours makes no sense. There should be more justices on the Court, and they should have limited terms. The system that makes most sense to me is that federal judges should come from those with experience on apellate courts and be appointed for at least ten years, subject to reappointment by the President and approval by the Senate.

 

[TomC]

I really think that 9 lifetime justices running the Supreme Court of a nation like ours makes no sense. There should be more justices on the Court, and they should have limited terms.

I'm not so sure about term limits, I'd be more inclined to mandatory retirement.

But I'm totally with you on the larger court part. The U.S. is vastly larger and more diverse than it was when 9 became the standard.

But the devil is in the details.

Suppose we all agree to enlarge the SCOTUS to 21. Who nominates and by what process are the selections made? Imagine if Trump and McConnell added 12 more justices? Frankly, I doubt I'd be happier if Biden &Co were doing it. Biden was just the lesser of two evils.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

I suggests the involvement of 50 judges, with each state in the union electing one representative every 10 years. These judges would convene in a government-owned and operated large studio to hear cases. Furthermore, their deliberations would take place on a government-run forum, similar to Reddit, that is accessible to the public.

Under this system, the inclusion of judges from all states ensures regional representation and diverse perspectives in the decision-making process. By conducting the cases in a government-owned studio, it helps maintain neutrality and transparency, fostering public trust in the judicial system.

The use of a government-run forum for deliberations allows for open and accessible discussions among the judges. This approach enables the public to observe the thought process and considerations that go into the decisions made by the judges. By providing public access to these discussions, it promotes accountability, enhances understanding of the legal process, and allows for broader participation and engagement in the justice system

I'd go as far as allowing a public comment section that judges may review.



Yeah I'mma dreamer.

 

[Gospel]

Btw all cases will remain undecided until there is no tie in the event of a 25/25 split.

Of course our current system of voting will have to be changed to support this idea.

 

[bilby]

..

 

[bilby]

I really think that 9 lifetime justices running the Supreme Court of a nation like ours makes no sense. There should be more justices on the Court

The equivalent UK judicial body, the UK Supreme Court, has 13 members; Proportional to population, that would equate to a US Supreme Court of around 65 judges.

The equivalent Australian body, The Australian High Court, has seven members; Proportional to population, that would equate to a US Supreme Court of over 100 judges.

 

[ZiprHead]

I really think that 9 lifetime justices running the Supreme Court of a nation like ours makes no sense. There should be more justices on the Court, and they should have limited terms.

I'm not so sure about term limits, I'd be more inclined to mandatory retirement.

But I'm totally with you on the larger court part. The U.S. is vastly larger and more diverse than it was when 9 became the standard.

But the devil is in the details.

Suppose we all agree to enlarge the SCOTUS to 21. Who nominates and by what process are the selections made? Imagine if Trump and McConnell added 12 more justices? Frankly, I doubt I'd be happier if Biden &Co were doing it. Biden was just the lesser of two evils.
Tom

It used to be one judge per judicial district. We now have thirteen districts but sill have nine justices.

 

[ZiprHead]

Amy Coney Barrett Faces Scrutiny Over Real Estate Deal With Religious Group

The revelation that Amy Coney Barrett sold her private residence to a member of a religious group shortly after being sworn in at the Supreme Court has raised questions about the conservative justice and the high court, whose transparency and ethics have recently been scrutinized.
Barrett had personal ties with the University of Notre Dame's Religious Liberty Initiative, according to a CNN report. The group, "informed by the Catholic tradition" of the college says it aims to "promote religious freedom for all people," according to its website.
Newsweek has contacted the Supreme Court for comment by email.
The group has been found to forge ties with justices to gain favor with the court, including paying for Justice Samuel Alito to travel to Rome to deliver a speech after the overturning of Roe v. Wade last year. The group's legal clinic has filed a series of "friend-of-the-court" briefs in religious liberty cases before the Supreme Court since it was founded in 2020—many of which Alito supported.
Barrett, a Donald Trump appointee and a former Notre Dame professor, was found to still be linked to the group after being appointed. Accountable.us, a left-leaning non-profit group, discovered that the justice sold her private residence to a recently-hired Notre Dame professor—Brendan Wilson—only a few months after being sworn in to the Supreme Court in 2020.

 

[ZiprHead]

Gorsuch caught selling property to head of law firm involved in cases

Gorsuch found a buyer just nine days after his confirmation — but didn't disclose it.

www.salon.com

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch found a buyer for a 40-acre property he had been trying to sell for nearly two years, only nine days after being confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, according to Politico.

Brian Duffy, the chief executive of top law firm Greenberg Traurig, bought the land co-owned by Gorsuch in Granby, Colorado in 2017. A deed in the county's record system shows that Duffy and his wife closed on the home located on the plot of land for $1.825 million. Given that he had a 20% stake in the property, Gorsuch secured a profit between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale.

Politico reported that Gorsuch failed to identify the buyer on his federal disclosure forms and, since the purchase, Greenberg Traurig has been involved in at least 22 cases before or presented to the court. Twelve cases in which Gorsuch's opinion was recorded show that he sided with Greenberg Traurig clients eight times and against them four times.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Man, law firms love buying real estate.

 

[laughing dog]

From my meager reading of history, SCOTUS justices have a long history of appearances of conflict of interest behavior that stretches back decades if not longer. I am not excusing the appalling "tin ears" of Thomas, Roberts, Gorusch and Alito, but there clearly is a culture of "I am above scrutiny". Given the blatant ideological decisions on important issues, I expect this scrutiny to continue. SCOTUS's standing in the eyes of the public will continue to fall as long as this continues.

 

[ZiprHead]

From my meager reading of history, SCOTUS justices have a long history of appearances of conflict of interest behavior that stretches back decades if not longer. I am not excusing the appalling "tin ears" of Thomas, Roberts, Gorusch and Alito, but there clearly is a culture of "I am above scrutiny". Given the blatant ideological decisions on important issues, I expect this scrutiny to continue. SCOTUS's standing in the eyes of the public will continue to fall as long as this continues.

You can give them all the scrutiny you like but if they cannot be impeached there isn't a damn thing that can be done about it.

 

[laughing dog]

From my meager reading of history, SCOTUS justices have a long history of appearances of conflict of interest behavior that stretches back decades if not longer. I am not excusing the appalling "tin ears" of Thomas, Roberts, Gorusch and Alito, but there clearly is a culture of "I am above scrutiny". Given the blatant ideological decisions on important issues, I expect this scrutiny to continue. SCOTUS's standing in the eyes of the public will continue to fall as long as this continues.

You can give them all the scrutiny you like but if they cannot be impeached there isn't a damn thing that can be done about it.

They can be impeached. The process is the identical to the impeachment for a POTUS. Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1805 but the Senate acquitted him. However, I think about 10 federal judges have been impeached and convicted.

 

[ZiprHead]

From my meager reading of history, SCOTUS justices have a long history of appearances of conflict of interest behavior that stretches back decades if not longer. I am not excusing the appalling "tin ears" of Thomas, Roberts, Gorusch and Alito, but there clearly is a culture of "I am above scrutiny". Given the blatant ideological decisions on important issues, I expect this scrutiny to continue. SCOTUS's standing in the eyes of the public will continue to fall as long as this continues.

You can give them all the scrutiny you like but if they cannot be impeached there isn't a damn thing that can be done about it.

They can be impeached. The process is the identical to the impeachment for a POTUS. Justice Samuel Chase was impeached in 1805 but the Senate acquitted him. However, I think about 10 federal judges have been impeached and convicted.

Not with the Republicans in Washington today.

 

[ZiprHead]

The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito leased a plot of land to an oil and natural gas company while the judge was weakening the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency, report says

In the lease, Martha Ann Bomgardner Alito would earn 3/16ths of the money generated from inherited land if it were to produce any fossil fuels.

www.businessinsider.com

In June 2022, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito filed a lease for a plot of land in Oklahoma which would give her partial revenue from any oil or gas obtained from the designated area, according to The Intercept.

In the lease, Martha Ann Bomgardner Alito came to an agreement with Citizen Energy III — an oil and natural gas company — which would give her 3/16ths of the revenue generated from potential oil and gas sales if the plot that she inherited from her late father could produce any fossil fuels.

There are thousands of oil and gas leases across Oklahoma, where the energy sector is a critical economic driver. And Citizen Energy III isn't part of any specific cases in front of the Supreme Court, so there doesn't appear to be a clear conflict of interest regarding Bomgardner Alito's land in Oklahoma.

But the oil and gas lease troubles many environmentalists given Justice Alito's role in weakening the scope of the Environmental Protection Agency in several cases that have come before the court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That doesn't appear to be an issue. I don't see how it can possibly be a conflict of interest, unless the company goes before the Court.

 

[ZiprHead]

Lawyers with supreme court business paid Clarence Thomas aide via Venmo

Payments to Rajan Vasisht, an aide from 2019-21, underscore ties between the justice and lawyers who argue cases in front of him

www.theguardian.com

Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party.

The payments to Rajan Vasisht, who served as Thomas’s aide from July 2019 to July 2021, seem to underscore the close ties between Thomas, who is embroiled in ethics scandals following a series of revelations about his relationship with a wealthy billionaire donor, and certain senior Washington lawyers who argue cases and have other business in front of the justice.


Vasisht’s Venmo account – which was public prior to requesting comment for this article and is no longer – show that he received seven payments in November and December 2019 from lawyers who previously served as Thomas legal clerks. The amount of the payments is not disclosed, but the purpose of each payment is listed as either “Christmas party”, “Thomas Christmas Party”, “CT Christmas Party” or “CT Xmas party”, in an apparent reference to the justice’s initials.

However, it remains unclear what the funds were for.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Waiting for the cash payments aren't unethical argument. Look, a gift is a gift. Whether it is to a hunting lodge in the middle of Alaska, on a $15 million yacht, occasional hookers, or a straight up cash equivalent, it is just private people showing appreciation to a Supreme Court Justice.

I saw an article on WashPo about Sotomayor reps telling libraries to buy her book. I'm thinking maybe we need to up the pay scale for SCOTUS justices and make gifts and grift illegal.

 

[Shadowy Man]

However, it remains unclear what the funds were for.

What part of "Christmas Party" do they not understand? Clearly nothing to see here, folks. Move along...

 

[bilby]

I'm thinking maybe we need to up the pay scale for SCOTUS justices and make gifts and grift illegal.

I'm thinking that with their salaries already at $274,200/yr, you could reasonably skip the first part of that.

Indeed, gifts and grift should be illegal for all judges, in all courts and jurisdictions, regardless of how much they are earning.