SCOTUS

[USUC]

no, those narratives exist only in your head and are the product of partisan whataboutism. can you point to an example of another justice who has committed an actual and provable violation of federal disclosure law? how about this oped from the nyt that specifically outlines favor hounding by not just thomas, but also by scalia, rbg and breyer? tons of similar reporting from major news outlets, including those the trump gop disciples regularly continue to reject as fake news. the paranoia of massive media bias against your cause is pathetic and lazy, and if the factual reporting is accurate you should find it troubling whether or not the masthead offends your sensibilities.

You have created this strawman man where I am a Thomas defender and a trumpist. It isn't necessary. Look, I'm not a lawyer and I will not pretend to be anything close to an expert on law, ethics, or jurisprudence. I have my personal set of beliefs that seem to line up with those who refer to themselves as originslists (Thomas and Alito do not seem to adhere to those principles in good faith in the way Gorsuch appears to). While I have no problem with shining a light on the ethical issues with Thomas, I do with coverage that appears to sow seeds of doubt towards the legitimacy of the judiciary.

I'm going to take your presumption that my criticism of media is coming from the same place as "fake news" MAGA types as genuine. It's not reactionary and I do have some experience in the subject matter.

Bias manifests itself in a number of ways. I can go on a news aggregator and find article after article on the Thomas. Within those articles, content is weighted towards a particular viewpoint. The substance of the coversge of Thomas is no doubt factual, but its placed within a narrative broader in scope. For instance, experts cited inject comments implicating the legitimacy of the broader court. Issue salience, framing, emphasis, expert selection, etc all have an impact on the coverage.

[old_gregg]

While I have no problem with shining a light on the ethical issues with Thomas, I do with coverage that appears to sow seeds of doubt towards the legitimacy of the judiciary.

what does this even mean? you're saying that reporting on actual violations of federal law and breaches of the bounds of decorum should not be reported on because it harms the legitimacy of the judiciary? what specific reporting are you talking about that crosses this line? what harms the legitimacy of the judiciary more is judges who make less than $200k spending their time with ideologically aligned megadonors on private jets, yachts and at private clubs you otherwise have to be a billionaire to afford and sending their adopted kids to prep schools the tuition of which represents a double digit portion of their salary and getting it paid for by third parties whose political aims include influencing the composition and outcomes of the supreme court.

I'm going to take your presumption that my criticism of media is coming from the same place as "fake news" MAGA types as genuine. It's not reactionary and I do have some experience in the subject matter.

Bias manifests itself in a number of ways. I can go on a news aggregator and find article after article on the Thomas. Within those articles, content is weighted towards a particular viewpoint. The substance of the coversge of Thomas is no doubt factual, but its placed within a narrative broader in scope. For instance, experts cited inject comments implicating the legitimacy of the broader court. Issue salience, framing, emphasis, expert selection, etc all have an impact on the coverage.

so what??? first, that does not make the underlying factual reporting untrue or irrelevant or delegitimize the concerns. second, how could you have an issue or disagree with experts opining that a scotus justice accepting enormous value from ideologically motivated actors and refusing to disclose it (including when required to do so by federal law) undermines the legitimacy of the court? your condemnation of the coverage and not of the underlying bad acts as the cause of ordinary people wondering about the legitimacy of the court are insane.

[USUC]

what does this even mean? you're saying that reporting on actual violations of federal law and breaches of the bounds of decorum should not be reported on because it harms the legitimacy of the judiciary? what specific reporting are you talking about that crosses this line? what harms the legitimacy of the judiciary more is judges who make less than $200k spending their time with ideologically aligned megadonors on private jets, yachts and at private clubs you otherwise have to be a billionaire to afford and sending their adopted kids to prep schools the tuition of which represents a double digit portion of their salary and getting it paid for by third parties whose political aims include influencing the composition and outcomes of the supreme court.



so what??? first, that does not make the underlying factual reporting untrue or irrelevant or delegitimize the concerns. second, how could you have an issue or disagree with experts opining that a scotus justice accepting enormous value from ideologically motivated actors and refusing to disclose it (including when required to do so by federal law) undermines the legitimacy of the court? your condemnation of the coverage and not of the underlying bad acts as the cause of ordinary people wondering about the legitimacy of the court are insane.

Yes yes yes, I got your point the first two times you made it. Willfully ignoring my points and attributing beliefs to me I don't hold.

[old_gregg]

Yes yes yes, I got your point the first two times you made it. Willfully ignoring my points and attributing beliefs to me I don't hold.

i am directly addressing what you're saying. specific examples of reporting that is undermining the legitimacy of the court.

[frank ryan]

Look you guys, I know that you are unhappy with the makeup of the court. I know you are upset at the tactics of McConnell with Garland. I'm sure RBG not stepping down during Obama's presidency bugs you. And I understand Thomas has been despised more than any other justice by the left in living memory. But this bombastic, hyperbolic, and inequitable treatment of conservative appointed judges has done nothing but ensured the the right's support of them and weakened any good faith attempts at ethics reform.

Whatever genuine ethics objections have been delegitimized by the clearly targeted and coordinated campaign by the legacy media, democratic politicians, and partisan activists. At the end of this all you get is the left who believes the court is completely illegitimate and a right who lacks introspection.

Yes. The make up of the court sucks for a liberal like myself but that is not why I am worried about and fearful about its health and validity. It is what is increasingly looking like graft on the part of Thomas and the lack of accountability. This is not a normal situation and I don't feel this way about Roberts or Barrett etc.

Presently, barking about mainstream media conspiracies doesn't hold up much when you look, honestly, at right-wing outlets. In a better era, Fox News would be laughed out of business.

If Clarence Thomas was liberal this is would still a story and would still merit concern.


The basic news stories don't seem hyperbolic at all. Ethical problems have not been because maintstream liberals are whining about conservative judges.

[Uncle Ted]

Nothing to see here... move along.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from cases involving publisher that paid her $3M: report

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from multiple cases involving a book publisher – Penguin Random House – which paid her more than $3 million since 2010, according to a report.

The copyright infringement cases, in which Penguin Random House stood to suffer financial damage if the court ruled unfavorably, were not taken up by the high court but justices voted on whether or not to hear the cases.

Altogether, Sotomayor earned $3.6 million from Penguin Random House and its subsidiaries for agreeing to let them publish her 2013 memoir, “My Beloved World,” and numerous children’s books since then, the Daily Wire reported on Thursday.

The same year that her memoir came out, Sotomayor voted on whether the high court should take up Aaron Greenspan v. Random House.
[...]

https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/suprem...her-3m-report/

[frank ryan]

Nothing to see here... move along.


https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/suprem...her-3m-report/

Yeah, that's not okay either. More reason for the court to care about rehabbing their reputation. My concern doesn't subside if you find bad behavior among liberals.

[All-American]

Yeah, that's not okay either. More reason for the court to care about rehabbing their reputation. My concern doesn't subside if you find bad behavior among liberals.

In fact I think there’s a good case to be made that this is more concerning than anything Thomas is alleged to have done, since it involves matter actually before the court.

At the same time, remember that the Supreme Court operates jointly in everything they do. It’s not like the lower court, where one recusal means you replace that judge with another judge that was just as likely to be on the case as the one leaving. It is important for Supreme Court Justices to participate if they can.

Also, it’s just a cert petition. One percent of filed petitions get granted. It would be more concerning if this were a case they decided to take, or if she participated in deliberations on the case.

Still pretty low on the concern scale for me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Catfight!

Embedded Tweet

[Non Sequitur]

Catfight!

Embedded Tweet

[Commando]

Huh? Sotomayor is badass.

[BlueK]

Woohoo! The Court rejects the independent state legislature theory 6-3. Ruling the other way on this one would have been a horrific blow to the very idea of checks and balances with anything related to elections and state legislatures.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/u...elections.html

[Commando]

Oh yeah-- the Court also rejected the idea that states have standing to disagree with resource allocation decisions of executive agencies. This was obvious political grandstanding by an activist Texas district court judge who caused pretty much all the immigration courts in the country to grind to a halt because Secretary Mayorkas established enforcement priorities for ICE and he 'disagreed,' ordering an injunction that took effect nationwide. Sorry-- maga is just dumb.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Woohoo! The Court rejects the independent state legislature theory 6-3. Ruling the other way on this one would have been a horrific blow to the very idea of checks and balances with anything related to elections and state legislatures.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/27/u...elections.html

And yet another apocalyptic prediction about the conservative court fails to materialize.

[Northwestcoug]

And yet another apocalyptic prediction about the conservative court fails to materialize.

Well let’s be honest. Roe v Wade was pretty apocalyptic.