[hn_throwaway_99]

The mental gymnastics that jurists attempt to go through to justify their rulings as "principled" in some sense is just baffling to me. The right railed against "judicial activism" for years, but it is plainly obvious that is what is happening here (overturning precedent after precedent solely based on their current feelings), especially by giving credence to the "unitary executive" theory that obviously makes separation of powers a moot point when taken to its conclusion.

The executive branch, as the one tasked with "faithful execution of the laws", is really the only branch that actually does anything substantial. I mean, yes the Congress passes laws and the SC interprets them, but the only branch that can actually carry out those laws is the executive branch. These rulings by the SC basically say that the President can do whatever he wants because (a) he can't be prosecuted for any official actions, and (b) all regulatory decisions are now solely within his control.

Starting with Citizens United, this crop of SC justices will go down in infamy as some of the worst since Dred Scott. Let's hope we don't need another actual civil war to rectify their buffoonery.

[superxpro12]

Just stop trying to find logic in the hypocrisy. "Every accusation is a confession" by them rings true louder and louder with each passing day.

Precedent and reason is no longer a metric for the conservative justices. Only the party's wishes. Which means they are a political body now.

[the_sleaze_]

Please don't forget the gifts and donations the judges receive because "Until recently, the judiciary’s ethics guidance didn’t explicitly address the ownership issue."

> If Thomas had chartered the plane and the 162-foot yacht himself, the total cost of the trip could have exceeded $500,000

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...

[apparent]

Are you of the opinion that he would decide cases differently if not for those gifts? Because the general consensus is that Thomas is one of the most ideologically pure justices (whether one thinks his ideology is good or bad). I've not seen anyone identify even a single case where his vote seems to coincide with a benefactor, but not his typical ideology.

[the_sleaze_]

I genuinely struggle to comprehend the stance behind your comment. There are essentially no other official seats that are _not beholden to anti-bribery laws and standards.

This is like saying Pete Rose was innocent because he never threw any game he gambled on, or Trump can take gifts from Qatar because they never influenced him in any way.

I genuinely think this argument is made with dishonest motives. Truly astounding if it is not.

[apparent]

There are two possible reasons that someone might be generous with a justice: either because they like and want to support him, or because they want to influence him. The first presents no ethical issues, but the latter does.

If there is any evidence of the latter, perhaps you could point it out? AFAIK, none of the generosity ever received by Thomas came from a friend with business before the court. Furthermore, Thomas is perhaps the most easily predicted justice, since he sticks to his ideological guns, which are quite well-known. Attempting to bribe him would be a fool's errand, and by all appearances it has not happened, at least not successfully.

You're free to point to evidence to the contrary, if you're aware of it.