[koolba]

> Part of the problem is the incredible corruption at the Supreme Court. The courts increasingly can't be trusted to be a stopgap.

Just because a body disagrees with your desired interpretation of the law does not mean its corrupt. I disagree with the liberal justices on just about every split decision, but I don't think they're on the take. They simply have a different philosophy of the law.

I challenge you to find any specific court case taking up by the SCOTUS where you think the outcome was the result of corruption.

> Then you have the current administration making veiled threats against senators to ensure they vote as intended.

I'm more concerned about the other direction where the (at the time) Senate majority leader expressly threatened the SCOTUS to vote a particular way or they will "you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price": https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/rare-rebuke-c...

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

For your challenge: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-tru...

The context of the Supreme Court choosing to reverse 50 years of precedent regarding abortion is pretty important there. Especially as the justices involved were going against their explicit answers from their confirmation hearings, that it was settled law. Schumer also did not threaten violence.

[koolba]

> For your challenge: https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/supreme-court-grants-tru...

I fail to see how this is a valid example of a corrupt decision.

And if you're going to start prosecuting Presidents for official acts, we definitely should start with the one that was executing US citizens via drone strikes without a trial.

> The context of the Supreme Court choosing to reverse 50 years of precedent regarding abortion is pretty important there. Especially as the justices involved were going against their explicit answers from their confirmation hearings, that it was settled law.

So a judge can never change their mind on anything? And once a ruling is decided, it's carved in stone forever?

By that bankrupt logic we'd be stuck with Plessy v. Ferguson.

> Schumer also did not threaten violence.

I'd love to hear what other consequences you think he was eluding to when he said they will "pay the price". It's clearly not at the ballot box as SCOTUS are appointed for life.

[NickC25]

>Just because a body disagrees with your desired interpretation of the law does not mean its corrupt.

Have you heard of a gentleman by the name of Clarence Thomas? If you have, I'm sure you've heard about some of the gifts he's been given by people who had upcoming business before the court?

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

He ignored the link about Thomas' massive gift/donation totals in my earlier post. He's heard about it but might be willfully ignoring it.

[troyvit]

> I challenge you to find any specific court case taking up by the SCOTUS where you think the outcome was the result of corruption.

The presidential immunity case is another good one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024)

I think the first question to ask is, if the U.S. had a democratic president during the time of this judgement, would the vote granting presidential still have been 6-3 along party lines?

Perhaps if it had been a democrat president more of the liberal justices would have voted for it too, but that still indicates a corrupted court. It's just corrupted the other way.

There was additional appearance of corruption in that Alito refused to recuse himself even though he projected a clear bias towards the Jan. 6 riots by both flying a flag supporting the rioters [1].

It's nine un-elected people with no term limits who make up a third of our government. No matter who is in charge it's going to be a little corrupt I'd say.

[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/scotus-alito-flag-controversy-...

[koolba]

> I think the first question to ask is, if the U.S. had a democratic president during the time of this judgement, would the vote granting presidential still have been 6-3 along party lines?

> Perhaps if it had been a democrat president more of the liberal justices would have voted for it too, but that still indicates a corrupted court. It's just corrupted the other way.

Eh? Biden, a Democrat, was President during the time of that judgement.

The primary benefactor of the outcome of the case is clearly Trump as he's the one with open Federal lawsuits, but the POTUS at the time was a Democrat and the 2024 election had not happened yet either. So whatever immunity power the court granted, it was granting on an ongoing basis to Biden.

> There was additional appearance of corruption in that Alito refused to recuse himself even though he projected a clear bias towards the Jan. 6 riots by both flying a flag supporting the rioters [1].

There's an incredibly blurry line between bias an opinion. Having an opinion is not grounds for recusal. If he was at the capital or somehow involved with a lower court interaction, that'd be a conflict.

> It's nine un-elected people with no term limits who make up a third of our government. No matter who is in charge it's going to be a little corrupt I'd say.

I really don't think they're corrupt at all. There's just this sad framing of "us v.s. them" that makes people think that the only way someone could disagree is they are corrupt. I don't see it like that though. I just see a core difference of opinion (and I happen to side with one side much more than the other).

[troyvit]

> Eh? Biden, a Democrat, was President during the time of that judgement.

Sorry, bad typing. The judgement was for the ex-president while Biden was in office and my point was that the spread might have been different if the case was against a Democrat.

I agree about your line between bias and opinion, and I might have my own biases telling me when an opinion is a bias. However the judge for life thing we have here is not good for anybody.