|
|
|
|
|
|
by elmerfud
1040 days ago
|
|
|
Maybe this is breaking news to you that supreme Court justices receive gifts but a quick Google search will reveal news articles going back 10 plus years that talk about this. This is well known that supreme Court justices have received gifts many of them extremely lavish by normal person standards. There is constantly investigations into the justices. Literally every opinion that they publish is scrutinized. If a traditionally liberal Justice all of a sudden ruled in an extremely conservative manner that would like people's hair on fire. So the investigations are constant and the fact that the justices rule extremely consistently is strong evidence that whatever gifts they're given do not influence them to rule opposite of their constitutional understanding. What you do see in other areas such as Congress is that money buys votes. That is a well demonstrated fact. It is so common and so well demonstrated people ignore it at this point. You cannot find any evidence that the supreme Court justices are ruling inconsistent with their past stated constitutional understandings and inconsistent with their past rulings. That's why in all of these hit pieces there is never anything brought up about corruption and buying of justices. If there was even a shred of evidence that Clarence Thomas vote on the supreme Court could be bought it would be front and center on every page. Instead we get nonsense hit pieces of one of the most corrupt political bodies Congress pointing fingers at one of the most consistent government bodies. Because you can disagree with how the justices rule on issues but the supreme Court justices are exceedingly consistent in how they rule. That is direct evidence that either votes have been bought for many decades and prior to when they were nominated to the supreme Court or that these gifts don't influence. I don't think there's a tin foil hat big enough to think that people are able to predict potential supreme Court justices decades before they even made a name for themselves and started buying them off on mass hoping they'll make the supreme Court. |
|
|
Yes, we can, and so could you if you were actually curious about the matter. You're actually demonstrating the exact same kind of "motivated reasoning" that afflicts the court.
Kavanaugh and Alito have both changed their position on stare decisis, going from "settled law" to "egregiously wrong" when it suited them in Dobbs. Kavanaugh changed his attitude on the rights of religious minorities.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/03/patrick-henry-mu...
Alito flip-flopped on textualism when it came to the EPA.
https://newrepublic.com/article/173028/samuel-alito-kavanaug...
Gorsuch abandoned originalism when it came to the rights of LGBTQ+ folks.
https://www.city-journal.org/article/will-the-real-justice-g...
There are many many more examples, for anyone not inclined to cherry-pick and turn a blind eye. Stop demanding ever more proof from other people, just because you haven't even bothered to study the reality yourself. Prove your own points or stop making these sweeping claims that are, frankly, tantamount to lies.
BTW, before you add strawman to the list of your crimes against curious discussion, nobody is saying that justices can't change their minds. They can and should, as circumstances or understanding change. Even long-standing precedents have been set aside this way, and correctly so. However, the recent changes in attitude seem suspiciously sudden and arbitrary, and go to the heart of each justice's claimed judicial philosophy (often the one that got them through confirmation). As Kagan said in her dissent on Dobbs, nothing has changed about the case or issue itself; all that has changed is the composition of the court, and that's a poor basis for such a momentous decision.
Again, we can't read minds. Maybe there have been several once-in-a-lifetime changes of heart all at once. OTOH, even if we consider such an incredibly unlikely coincidence, the court's recent decisions are far more consistent with a particular partisan agenda than with any recognizable judicial philosophy - even a flawed one. That's what sets them apart from any other court at least during my lifetime.