the court is openly, blatantly corrupt. I see no reason that should stop for this case in particular. being said, I also see no reason they would rule in favor of trump. he made a mistake that not many power brokers survive: he’s depending on favors he’s done for the justices in the past in getting them nominated rather than on what he can do for them in the future, and he’s essentially said out loud that he’s gonna consolidate all power including theirs in the office of PotUS if elected again. They’ll let him coup us, but I don’t think they’ll let him coup them and I highly doubt they’ll declare the president completely above the law while the sitting president is a democrat.
I honestly don’t think the more recent “conservative” additions save gorsich actually would care if he did. They’d ride off rich into the sunset as “prestigious” SCOTUS members.
if they were gonna retire rich on billionaire donor money they would have already done it. look at Corrupt Clarence: as long as he’s sitting on the bench he can count on thousand dollar/day vacations and he knows that. As soon as he has nothing to offer his billionaire owners they’ll pull up stakes and move on the bribing the next justice.
The way current day
briberypolitical connections work is that you work on someone’s behalf and then when you’re done working in government you get a position as a board member, director position, whatever, from the people you helped profit so they can give you a gigantic salary as compensation for your favors for them without the government being able to do anything about it. I don’t think any politician stays in the game for the free trips.with scotus it seems like they don’t ever bother with the veil of delayed rewards anymore. someone gives a justice a pile of money, that justice rules in their favor, and as long as neither of them says “hey, that pile of money is definitely to buy rulings and not as a gift freely given to someone who just happens to have the final say in the law of the land” then no one can ‘prove’ bribery. the fact is at this point they’re mocking us openly.
I highly doubt they’ll declare the president completely above the law while the sitting president is a democrat.
I’m imagining a scenario where they do that and then Biden immediately orders drive strikes on the Republican justices, because why the hell not?
sitting president is a democrat
That would matter if the sitting president had some conviction beyond the status quo. He doesn’t, and if they declare Trump is above the law, Biden will staunchly refuse to take advantage of that power…because, reasons.
The D’s inaction is what got us here. I don’t expect that to change in the next 12 months.
His wife was involved in Jan 6th.
If he doesn’t, democracy is dead. Even if he votes against trump. Legitimacy is gone.
There is no democracy, Hilary got more votes in 2016.
This is how our constitution works tho. He’s talking about the institutions that make up our specific democracy
Call it what you will, just don’t call it democracy when the will of the minority is exerted on the majority.
Gore got more votes in 2000. Our democracy has been a shambling corpse for a long time.
Americans all like, we brought democracy to the developing world! Y’all don’t have democracy at home, chill.
Like he remotely understands the concept of ethics.
Oh, come now. He understands it perfectly, and thinks it’s not worth wiping his ass with.
Watch him hide behind this:
This is the best summary I could come up with:
U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is facing pressure to recuse himself from a case determining whether Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity from prosecution in a federal indictment against him.
Trump made the argument in relation to a federal case accusing him of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the run-up to the January 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol.
In December 2022, she was questioned by a committee investigating the January 6 riot after reports that she had texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, urging him to continue challenging the election results.
"This issue will shape our democracy & ethnically & morally, Clarence Thomas recusing himself is the responsible thing to do — for public trust in the Court’s decision.
Democrat content creator Harry Sisson wrote: "Clarence Thomas must recuse himself from any and all cases involving Donald Trump and the 2020 election.
Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign reacted to the Supreme Court decision by accusing Smith of trying to rush a “witch hunt” in a press statement.
The original article contains 693 words, the summary contains 176 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Spoiler alert: He won’t.
Pond scum. I take that back actually, even scum is useful.
When has Clarence Thomas ever done the right thing? When do people think he will ever act properly under pressure?
He would if he wasn’t corrupt. If.
Yeah, no. I am not recusing myself. That new Code of Ethics we have? It’s all a big suggestion. I plan on taking those suggestions and put them straight into the garbage can. - Clarence Thomas
Hmmm…any guesses if he actually will? Cause I bet there is zero chance that he does.
I can’t imagine he will, nor will any of the justices appointed by Trump.
he didn’t recuse himself when his wife was on the docket… so why would he recuse himself from trump?
Exactly.
Can we at least update the description of Supreme Court Justice to remove impartiality and instead say something to the effect of ‘forces their will on people less fortunate?’
Also, call them judges. To call them justices perverts the entire concept.
I like the term ‘lawyer-deciders’ because what do you call a bus full of lawyers at the bottom of a lake?
A good start?
That’s not really fair, though. A lot of lawyers are fighting the good fight, such as environmental lawyers, those of the Southern Poverty Law Center, the ACLU and various other organizations who provide pro bono representation to those who couldn’t afford a good lawyer otherwise.
This would be a lot of effort for a 5-3 decision.
I mean, of course! His own wife was one of the co-conspirators!
What about the 3 people on the court who owe their cushy lifetime gig to him, though? The ones whose legal bribes still depend on his rabid following approving of them? Does anyone really think that they don’t have a conflict of interest?
Btw, that Newsweek fairness meter? By conflating left-right political views with fairness, it ironically reinforces the common misconception that a centrist perspective equals fairness, incentivising any reporter of theirs who cares about the meter to adopt a centrist point of view, thus making their reporting less fair and objective.
Luckily the three on the court already don’t actually owe him shit. I don’t have a lot of faith in them, but once on the court, they will be there forever, no matter what the orange poo ball says or does.
The orange garbage can may think they’ll be loyal to him, but we all know that loyalty only works one way with him.
Again my faith in these three is lowwwwww, but it’s not a given that they rule in his favor.
the three on the court already don’t actually owe him shit. I don’t have a lot of faith in them, but once on the court, they will be there forever, no matter what the orange poo ball says or does.
True, but you’re forgetting the millions if not tens or even hundreds of millions worth of various bribes go away if they’re no longer considered “loyal” to the Mango Mussolini.
They didn’t get to or near the top of those Federalist Society lists by NOT being corrupt as fuck, after all…
That’s a good point. I expect these organizations intend to outlast the orange shit stain so it’s just a matter of the winds of change blowing the other way, something which they have control over.
I expect these organizations intend to outlast the orange shit stain
Yeah they intend to, but they don’t yet know if they can. Just look at Kevin McCarthy acting all principled on January 7th when he thought it was finally over, only to come crawling back when it turned out that even treason wasn’t enough…
