All Things SCOTUS

IrishLax

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990


Like I said, nothing will come of this, but I don’t know how anyone looks at the conduct of Ginni and Clarence Thomas over the past three years and thinks it’s remotely appropriate that he is serving on the Supreme Court.
 
NorthDakota

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,695
Reaction score
5,995
IrishLax said:


Like I said, nothing will come of this, but I don’t know how anyone looks at the conduct of Ginni and Clarence Thomas over the past three years and thinks it’s remotely appropriate that he is serving on the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Thomas reported the Bible.

I think you are misunderstanding judicial rules.
 
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,581
Reaction score
20,031
Even if the trip didn’t need to be reported, it’s not a good look not reporting it.
 
Last edited:
NorthDakota

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,695
Reaction score
5,995
SeekNDestroy said:
Just say that you don’t care about judicial conduct as long as their beliefs align with yours.
Click to expand...
I care about judicial conduct. You want them to be as fair as possible. Judges generally are decent enough people.

But he said he discussed reporting requirements with his colleagues. Believe it or not, his colleagues come from across the ideological spectrum.

Its not as though it was a secret he's been friends with this guy. He reported a Bible gift from him (and I think?) flights from him before they were close friends. If this guy had business before the court, he'd probably have an obligation to recuse.

But going on vacations with a buddy isn't judicially problematic. Even my lib lawyer friends/ mentors (I cast a wide net) are chuckling at some of this.

Got a buddy with a lake cabin, he invites us basically every weekend, whether he is there or not. Including the use of his pontoon. If I'm a judge in a few years, am I required to disclose that? The rules don't seem to have been clear.
 
NorthDakota

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,695
Reaction score
5,995
Irish#1 said:
Even if the trip didn’t need to be reported, it’s not a good look not to.
Click to expand...
If the rules can be interpreted to say "you don't need to do this" then its not a bad look not to.

If a conservative donor wants to buy a Justice, then Clarence Thomas is a waste of money. He is rock-ribbed, and consistently gonna come down on a certain side on the "big issues" that class of people care about.
 
SeekNDestroy

SeekNDestroy

Well-known member
Messages
3,336
Reaction score
4,524
NorthDakota said:
Occam's Razor says it was a liberal clerk or liberal staff based on the publication. But it seems like Roberts is letting it go.
Click to expand...
Roberts found out who it was. All of you know this. The reason the culprit hasn’t been identified publicly is obvious, too.
 
TorontoGold

TorontoGold

Mr. Dumb Moron
Messages
7,352
Reaction score
5,707
@NorthDakota I think we've developed enough of a rapport that I hope you know these are genuine questions - what is stopping the gov from adding term limits to justices? We have a 75 mandatory retirement age up here and it seems pretty reasonable. We also have a demographic based appointment where it's allocated based on west/east/QC, what's stopping the US from doing something similar? Those seem to be pretty non-partisan things, I know Thomas is the closest to 75 but RBG at 132 years old seemed insane to me and with term limits I think you get rid of the political pressuring to have someone retire.
 
NorthDakota

NorthDakota

Grandson of Loomis
Messages
15,695
Reaction score
5,995
TorontoGold said:
@NorthDakota I think we've developed enough of a rapport that I hope you know these are genuine questions - what is stopping the gov from adding term limits to justices? We have a 75 mandatory retirement age up here and it seems pretty reasonable. We also have a demographic based appointment where it's allocated based on west/east/QC, what's stopping the US from doing something similar? Those seem to be pretty non-partisan things, I know Thomas is the closest to 75 but RBG at 132 years old seemed insane to me and with term limits I think you get rid of the political pressuring to have someone retire.
Click to expand...
Perfectly fine and reasonable questions. Article 3 of the Constitution says "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

*Peep that old english spelling of behavior.

So it is interpreted to mean they retain their position for life, until impeached, or retirement. Legislation on retirement would be unconstitutional. I think the mandatory retirement age would also be a hindrance, as it would encourage a President to nominate a brilliant 31 year old from North Dakota, as his legacy would be 44 years on the Supreme Court. The political pressure to retire is weak unless you are some sort of criminal, which these people tend not to be. Can't really pressure a guy who is guaranteed his position by the document he interprets (and will interpret any challenges to the power the document grants him). If you are on social media and someone says "Term limits!" "Impeachment!" "Reform!", probably best to just ignore them. Because it isn't going to happen absent an amendment, and an amendment ain't going to happen. They will get their 50K twitter likes though, so I'm happy for them.

Geographic allocation is interesting, but I don't know that it really matters. I think modern presidents have sorta kept that in mind (for their own political reasons). The last 4 nominated justices are from Colorado (Gorsuch), Maryland (Keg City), Louisiana (Notre Dame's own), and Florida (KBJ). Two women. One black. Three time zones. Four undergraduate universities. Three law schools.
 
Last edited:
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,581
Reaction score
20,031
NorthDakota said:
If the rules can be interpreted to say "you don't need to do this" then its not a bad look not to.

If a conservative donor wants to buy a Justice, then Clarence Thomas is a waste of money. He is rock-ribbed, and consistently gonna come down on a certain side on the "big issues" that class of people care about.
Click to expand...
Maybe from a legal perspective, but to the average citizen it's a bad look IMO.
 
Irish#1

Irish#1

Livin' Your Dream!
Staff member
Messages
44,581
Reaction score
20,031
TorontoGold said:
@NorthDakota I think we've developed enough of a rapport that I hope you know these are genuine questions - what is stopping the gov from adding term limits to justices? We have a 75 mandatory retirement age up here and it seems pretty reasonable. We also have a demographic based appointment where it's allocated based on west/east/QC, what's stopping the US from doing something similar? Those seem to be pretty non-partisan things, I know Thomas is the closest to 75 but RBG at 132 years old seemed insane to me and with term limits I think you get rid of the political pressuring to have someone retire.
Click to expand...
We don't want to be like Canada. We're still recovering from you giving us Alan Thicke!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top