Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by chabes 29 days ago
The Supreme Court is the joke… it has lost all credibility with partisan inconsistency and overt bribery.
3 comments

I'm unfamiliar with this, can you elaborate?
Analysis by Fix the Court identified 546 gifts valued at over $4.7 million given to 18 current and former justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the primary recipient.

Judicial reform bills have tried to address the issue, but these bills have very little chance of success in the current political environment.

From 2024:

https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hol...

In some sense, it is quite remarkable that the institution has survived this long considering they control outcomes of such vast power while being indirectly elected, holding the post for life, and there being such a high standard for the legislature to remove them that it has never been used successfully.

Looking it up, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas resigned from office because he accepted $20k from a chap who he was judging a case on. It reminds me of Babe Ruth's life time earnings being under a million, while Shohei Ohtani's annual pay rewound to 1931 dollars is some 3 times that.

They're probably referring to the millions of dollars of gifts Clarence Thomas received over the years, often just prior to ruling in the gift giver's favor.

Here's the source I'm sure you'll want: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...

It's a big surprising thing to hear about for the first time! Glad to help you become familiar.

Note that, when you say "ruling in the gift givers favor," we should be careful not to imply that the gift givers were involved in any Supreme Court cases. At least, not Harlan Crow, who is the big name on this topic, was not involved in a SCOTUS case during Thomas' tenure. Not sure about the other gift givers. Presumably, someone would have pointed out by now if Thomas had received gifts from a party to case, and more likely he would have already recused before that became an issue.
> we should be careful not to imply that the gift givers were involved in any Supreme Court cases

Why does this matter? I'm not involved in any SC case but if I showed up at Clarence Thomas's door with $10 asking him to rule a certain way on a case I'm interested in, it would be called bribery by any sane definition.

Sure, but as far as I can tell, there's no evidence that happened. And I think I would have heard about it if the journalists were able to mention it.

The correct metaphor is if you had an interest in a case, gave Clarence Thomas $10 and said get yourself a nice froyo.

I didn't say it happened, I asked why you think it matters that the bribe wasn't given by someone involved in the case.

It is possible that a bribe was given by someone who is not party to the case and the comment I replied to was explaining that someone who is not party to the case was not giving a bribe, by virtue of the fact they weren't party to the case. I was hoping you could explain your perspective in the context I described but it seems I stumped you, hence the distraction about froyo and no substance in the reply.

Yes, that's true. It's not an actual person involved directly in the legal case; just people with a material interest in the outcome of the case.
What is a good faith/steelman reason for these gifts to exist at all?
Same reason as any gift? Friendship and fun :)
Who doesn’t get free yacht trips from their buddies?

I’m curious what you think will happen with Crow’s gifts if Thomas doesn’t strategically retire this term.

And you have only one party to blame for this, it also predates all the Trump unhinged cases/decisons and even his first mandate.

Republicans simply suceeded in their plan to take over the federal judiciary branch from the top, in great part with the help of the Federalist Society.

The only answer if Democrats ever take power back is to pack the court now, no amount of unwritten rules following and norms respecting can work against people who abuse the system and packed the court themselves (by unjustifiably blocking candidates nominations which would have balanced the court, for years)

I wonder if a two-party race to the ethical bottom is the only way to fix things because if underhanded unethical tactics only benefit one party then they won't want to fix it.
This is downvoted, but true.
Democrats, while better than republicans in this regard, are also to blame. It is not one or the other.
Nah, it's really just Republicans doing all the corruption these days at the SUpreme Court. Unless you can provide some decent examples of Democrats. You seem to be bothsidesing the issue when McConnell stole multiple seats.
Could you elaborate?
How so? The judiciary is stacked with compromised individuals. the republicans did this.
Clearance Thomas was confirmed 52-48, with 11 dems voting in favor [0]. He wouldn't have been confirmed without dem votes.

(The other five shitheads would have been confirmed without dem votes if I'm not mistaken.)

[0] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1...

I wasn’t aware of that - thank you.
No worries.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely blame the republicans for the state of the court. I'm just saying the dems have some shit on their hands too.

Clarence Thomas was confirmed in a very different era of politics, when the long term right wing strategy was only just beginning to take root; the vituperative rhetoric was still on the comparative fringe of talk radio; and cooperation was still the norm from both sides.
It’s their job to spot the rotten ones and block them.

Everyone who voted for him is culpable.

Obama should have picked a replacement for RBG. Biden and the democratic congress should have done more to get the judiciary back in line. They had their opportunities.
Obama and Biden should have done more. But they are not responsible for the malicious and calculated mess that has followed.
RBG passed away while Trump was president. Obama did pick a replacement for Antonin Scalia though: Merrick Garland. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even give Garland a hearing arguing it was "too close to the presidential election", even though Obama's term had about one year to go.
Obama could have done more to pressure RBG to retire into a friendly Senate.
What bribery?
Clarence and Alito have received gifts that would raise serious scrutiny if they were a “regular” government employee. Here’s a link to the series of articles covering this over the last few years.

https://www.propublica.org/series/supreme-court-scotus

Clarence Thomas accepted multiple bribes from Harlan Crow