Wouldn’t Thomas reject that gift also, but saying he wanted something worth far more?
5 Likes
What in the world do they mean by that? Am I completely missing the meaning, or are they holding up Thomas as a pillar or righteousness and Merchans as an example of what’s bad in the judicial system?
Yes
1 Like
Juan Merchan is a judge in a Trump trial in which he’s unlikely to be found not guilty on all counts. Therefore, Merchan is a extreme far-left deep-state liberal communist. He’s also an immigrant and brown, so two more counts against him.
Clarence Thomas is a MAGA Republican who supports the January 6th insurrection. Therefore he is good.
It doesn’t go any further. Thomas was the named Justice because he is the most clearly corrupt.
1 Like
Perhaps a little more media commentary than decorum issue (although the underlying behavior is not good):
I just heard Robin Young of WBUR’s Here and Now leave unchallenged the assertion from interviewee Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer, that Alito’s wife must have had permission to fly the flag upside-down.
Yeah, that’s ridiculous. However, reports are that it flew upside down for several days. It is hard to imagine that he wouldn’t notice over the course of several days. It also seems hard to imagine that something that bothered his wife so much would go unmentioned for several days. Knowing that it was flying upside down, to allow the flag to continue to fly upside down for 3 days would seem to be at the very least a tacit approval.
3 Likes
That is longer than i had heard. And as far as noticing that supposes the flag is easily visible (possibly illuminated) when leaving/returning home. In Jan I am often leaving and returning in the dark and don’t see the front of my house. So i don’t have a basis of presumption in this case.
Alito flew another Big Lie flag at his beach house. I’m sure it was all his wife’s fault.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/22/us/justice-alito-flag-appeal-to-heaven.html
So disappointing that we have multiple nut jobs on the Supreme court. No, I am not calling conservatives nut jobs. I am referring to the insurrectionists.
1 Like
Did I call it or did I call it?
1 day after I said they hate Merchan for being a brown immigrant, Trump publicly attacks him on his ethnicity.
2 Likes
Who wudda thunk Trump uses GoA as a source of ideas.
4 Likes
Brown v Board of Education – wrongly decided? If you think it is irrelevant to opine about that while writing a concurring decision about gerrymandering, then you might not be a Supreme Court justice.
https://www.axios.com/2024/05/23/clarence-thomas-supreme-court-racial-segregation
More on this decision:
I am less concerned about the merits of this individual case, and more concerned about new legal theories emerging here. First is that Alito is introducing the doctrine of presumption of white racial innocence. Second is that federal courts should no longer have any authority over voting districts, which is what Thomas is suggesting.
Kagan was blistering in her dissent. Seems like SC judges have no respect for each other now.
“The majority’s attempt to explain its contrary result fails at every turn. The majority picks and chooses evidence to its liking; ignores or minimizes less convenient proof; disdains the panel’s judgments about witness credibility; and makes a series of mistakes about expert opinions. The majority declares that it knows better than the District Court what happened in a South Carolina map-drawing room to produce District 1. But the proof is in the pudding: On page after page, the majority’s opinion betrays its distance from, and lack of familiarity with, the events and evidence central to this case.”
6 Likes
Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday declined to meet with Democratic senators to discuss Supreme Court ethics issues in the wake of reports that controversial flags were flown at Justice Samuel Alito’s houses.
In a letter to Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Roberts said he “must respectfully decline your request for a meeting,” citing concerns about maintaining judicial independence.
Roberts’ refusal to meet with senators was not a surprise, as last year he declined to attend a hearing on the ethics issue for similar reasons.
He noted in the latest letter that meeting with representatives of one party “who have expressed an interest in matters pending before the court” is another reason that “such a meeting would be inadvisable.”
“We cannot meet with anybody to discuss ethical standards because it would be unethical to meet with somebody who has an interest in cases of national importance. Because the Court always deals with cases of national importance, we can never discuss ethical standards.”
Read “Catch-22” much?
1 Like
This is an amazing quote.
4 Likes
We’re so important, standards don’t apply
1 Like
We investigated ourselves and determined that you’re not rich enough to bribe us. Go away, we’re busy getting our instructions on how we should decide.
1 Like
Dear Chairman Durbin and Senator Whitehouse:
Thank you for your letter of May 23, 2024.
In regard to questions concerning any Justice’s participation in pending cases, the Members of the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the practice we have followed for 235 years pursuant to which individual Justices decide recusal issues. See Commentary to Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States at 11 (Nov. 13, 2023); Statement ‘on Ethics Principles and Practices at 2 (Apr. 25, 2023). It is my understanding that Justice Alito has sent you a letter addressing this subject.
I must respectfully decline your request for a meeting. As noted in my letter to Chairman Durbin last April, apart from ceremonial events, only on rare occasions in our Nation’s history has a sitting Chief Justice met with legislators, even in a public setting (such as a Committee hearing) with members of both major political parties present. Separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence counsel against such appearances. Moreover, the format proposed—a meeting with leaders of only one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court — simply underscores that participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable.
Respectfully,
1 Like