Clarence Thomas & The Supreme Court

[GloomCookie]

So I was browsing NPR news and they had an interview with Northwestern University law professor Steven Lubet and he says that it's doubtful that disclosure rules will be effective. Article here.

Given there are few, if any, rules that are strictly placed on the highest court, do you think that will ever change? The Supreme Court seems to have very few rules, and they don't exactly seem inclined to inflict more upon themselves beyond when they have a controversy like Thomas and even then, there's nothing to really punish them.

If Congress passes a law, could the Court just slap it down and say that it's not required? What would that do to other courts? Will this lead to Thomas' removal from the court?

[TheGlyphstone]

 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[Vekseid]

In theory, the idea is the Legislative branch would impeach corrupt justices.

Ultimately I think we need a new branch of government specifically to ensure the accountability of the others.

[Oniya]

In theory, the idea is the Legislative branch would impeach corrupt justices.

Ultimately I think we need a new branch of government specifically to ensure the accountability of the others.

Unfortunately, the Legislative branch has shown a distinct unwillingness to do things on that order.  I think you may be right - but then how would that new branch be held accountable?

[GloomCookie]

In theory, the idea is the Legislative branch would impeach corrupt justices.

Ultimately I think we need a new branch of government specifically to ensure the accountability of the others.

I thought that was the role of the Executive?

I'm not being snide but I was always under the impression the Executive Branch was specifically tasked with enforcing the law and holding the other branches accountable. Legislative makes the laws, Executive enforces the laws, and the Judiciary rules on the laws.

The Judiciary is also supposed to be the weakest IIRC. While Congress and the Presidency have hard power, the Court must use soft power to get anywhere, and so they have to play political games to get what they want. All it would take is a bit of pushback from the other branches to screw the Court royally.

[Oniya]

Once the Executive nominates a justice, the Legislative branch holds hearings to determine if that justice is put on the Supreme Court.  Once a justice is seated, they have a life-time tenure, unless they are impeached - which is again, the provenance of the Legislative branch.

[Azy]

There are powers given to each branch that are to be used to keep the others in check.  The Judicial branch is supposed to interpret the law.  If the Legislative branch passes something that those against it feel violates the Constitution in some way, then they can take it to the Judicial branch, and they figure it out.  The same goes with something the Executive branch does, or if a group of people take issue with something their state is doing.  They are not supposed to have any agenda other than ensuring the Constitution continues to be the law of the land, and no laws are put into effect that violate it. 

Obviously since the court is tipped way into Conservative territory, advantage is being taken.  What would have to happen is for people like Mitch McConnell would have to be kicked out of Congress, because it's pretty clear stacking the court was done on purpose.  I don't remember who left the court in 2016, but vetting appointees is the Senate's job, and Mitch McConnell said well we can't do that right now.  It's an election year, so we have to wait until the next president is sworn in so the people can have their say.  But then in 2020 when RBG died, it was also an election year, but the Republicans pushed Trump's nominee through so fast it made everyone's head spin.  I guess the people need to have their say when the sitting president is a Democrat, but can't leave a seat open even in an election year when a Republican is sitting in the White House. 

This is why I agree there should be term limits.  People are living a lot longer now than they did in the late 1700's, and career politicians (on both sides mind you) are getting way too comfortable and way too corrupt.  Loyalty to party over everything else is seriously starting to piss me off.           

[GloomCookie]

In order for that to happen, we'd either need Congress to appoint a term limit via Constitutional amendment (which, let's be real, will never happen) or the states need to get together and push for it, which given the current climate also won't happen.

[Keelan]

For the Judicial Branch, the checks are:

-Nominated by the Executive Branch, but in exchange they can declare Presidential Acts unconstitutional.

-Confirmed nomination by the Legislative as well as voting to impeach judges, but in exchange they can declare Legislative laws unconstitutional.

Between the other two: Executive branch can veto the Legislative, but the Legislative has to approve nominations and budgets, override vetos with enough votes, and can impeach the Executive branch.

So unfortunately no, there is no way for the Executive to 'force' the Legislative to do their job, so to speak.

Also for reference, I believe in all of our history, there's only been 1 impeachment of a USSC Judge, and that was in 1805: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Samuel_Chase

That all said:

In theory, the idea is the Legislative branch would impeach corrupt justices.

Ultimately I think we need a new branch of government specifically to ensure the accountability of the others.

If you mean this as "We need a branch that can check all 3 branches", well then you've made it so that essentially this branch is now more powerful than the other three combined, and that's a big problem since it'll be filled with elected officials all the same.

That, or we're perpetuating the cycle, because as Oniya points out how do you check them (while keeping them viable as intended)? If the branches they police can check them, then that may render them ultimately ineffective because of the reality of politics. If they can't, then it opens that single branch up to tyrannical rule over the other three and new levels of corruption.

[Vekseid]

Unfortunately, the Legislative branch has shown a distinct unwillingness to do things on that order.  I think you may be right - but then how would that new branch be held accountable?

Who watches the watchers? Everyone. Everyone watches the watchers.

Ultimately, they would still be citizens, subject to Congressional investigation and being charged by the Executive to be brought before the Judicial. Their 'special power' would be to always have authority to investigate any figure, and to always have standing to bring charges, either before Congress or the Court. They would not have any authority to block investigations into themselves, and ultimately, the best cure for corruption is the combination of transparency and the willingness to act on the knowledge it reveals.

In any case, making sure investigative power can exist independently of the Executive is the critical factor here. It isn't remotely 'perpetuating the same problem' - it's a key weakness of America's current system.

This is why I agree there should be term limits.  People are living a lot longer now than they did in the late 1700's, and career politicians (on both sides mind you) are getting way too comfortable and way too corrupt.  Loyalty to party over everything else is seriously starting to piss me off.           

Term limits just give lobbyists the power, because they're the only ones who know how things work.

It would just make our government act in a more short-sighted fashion than it already does. The inability to make long-term plans is already a colossal problem.

I oppose term limits because they remove the one bit of foresight our nation may have.

Only one party follows the 'eleventh commandment'. Only one party has negotiated with hostile foreign powers to sway the election their way. Only one party has attempted to gut the Office of Congressional Ethics. Only one party presented a man with a billion dollars in debt to a hostile foreign power as their party's Presidential nominee. Only one party decided to raise my taxes. Only one party actively tolerates nazis in their membership. Only one party is passing abortion restrictions. Only one party is driving trans panic. Only one party is trying to sabotage our nation's education system. Only one party has a known sex trafficker in Congress. Only one party names its rules after a pedophile.

Only one party nominated Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh.

Ultimately, this situation exists because of said commandment. The inability to criticize Republicans has become so ingrained in their culture, they are completely and utterly incapable of policing their own.

They hide behind narratives like 'all politicians are corrupt' and then do their best to prove it. By lying about their opponents and embracing it themselves.

I will be shocked if more than a handful of Rs vote to impeach or convict Thomas, unless things get far, far more serious. Not in terms of what Thomas is accused of, but if there is an overall collapse of support for the party over defending him.

[GloomCookie]

Term limits don't necessarily have to be a limit on the number of consecutive terms someone serves for. It could be a requirement that once you hit a certain age or perhaps if you miss X number of votes because of health or some other requirement. I'd be much more inclined to go for that because then if you run into a situation such as the current oldest member of Congress, Senator Dianne Feinstein, who hasn't cast a vote since February 16. (Link to relevant news article: https://www.npr.org/2023/04/13/1169664922/dianne-feinstein-resign-judiciary-committee)

But, as far as I know, there are no laws that can punish a sitting member of the Supreme Court for failure to disclose. If they commit another crime, that's certainly worthy of impeachment, but nothing demands that Thomas has to disclose everything. It's policy, but it's not law. Until Congress makes it a law, then there's no reason to necessarily impeach Thomas, but it should make any future cases he deliberates on clear that he leans conservative, which I thought was already well established.

[TheGlyphstone]

The original reasoning for giving the Supreme Court justices a lifetime appointment was to keep them from turning partisan to Curry favor and keep their jobs. The partisan horse is already long gone from the flaming barn, but if a Justice can serve a single term and no longer be eligible, there's no pressure to campaign for longer service. This wouldn't have been feasible in the early days because the pool of qualified judges was so much smaller, but now there's more than enough candidates that you could give any one justice say...20 years on the bench before mandatory retirement. Or whatever number would mean you wouldn't get multiple vacancies in a single presidential term under normal circumstances.

[GloomCookie]

Make it 18 years. 9 justices, that's one every two years.

[Vekseid]

Age limits, I would be more okay with. Can start with an upper limit of 80 (to run) and ratchet down from there.

The original reasoning for giving the Supreme Court justices a lifetime appointment was to keep them from turning partisan to Curry favor and keep their jobs. The partisan horse is already long gone from the flaming barn, but if a Justice can serve a single term and no longer be eligible, there's no pressure to campaign for longer service.

If you read the decisions... just getting rid of Thomas and Alito would go a long way. Neither of them have the intellectual capacity for the court. The others are far less consistently partisan. Not even Barrett.

Single, ~20-year terms is an idea.

[GloomCookie]

Age limits, I would be more okay with. Can start with an upper limit of 80 (to run) and ratchet down from there.

If you read the decisions... just getting rid of Thomas and Alito would go a long way. Neither of them have the intellectual capacity for the court. The others are far less consistently partisan. Not even Barrett.

Single, ~20-year terms is an idea.

Why do you say they don't have the intellectual capacity for the court? Is there documentation to point to this?

[Vekseid]

Why do you say they don't have the intellectual capacity for the court? Is there documentation to point to this?

If reading Dobbs didn't make it obvious enough as-is, there are posts where an 8-1 decision gets noted and 'of course it's Thomas'.

Then Alito got confirmed.

Alito is going to leave a legacy as one of the last nakedly racist justices. Hopefully THE last.

Though Thomas coming in with "Let's let states ban interracial marriage" is certainly up there. I'm sure he has the nation's best interests at heart.

[GloomCookie]

If reading Dobbs didn't make it obvious enough as-is, there are posts where an 8-1 decision gets noted and 'of course it's Thomas'.

Then Alito got confirmed.

Alito is going to leave a legacy as one of the last nakedly racist justices. Hopefully THE last.

Though Thomas coming in with "Let's let states ban interracial marriage" is certainly up there. I'm sure he has the nation's best interests at heart.

That paints the justices as incredibly biased and racist, yes. But that doesn't mean they're stupid. While I agree that racism is definitely bad, not everyone who is racist is necessarily stupid. We like to think they are, but that's not by itself proof they're stupid.

Going against the majority also isn't necessarily a sign of stupidity. It could be a legitimate point, because even offering a minority opinion can have tremendous sway over how the law itself is interpreted. Case in point, here are some important dissenting opinions in the past.

Morality does not equate to intelligence, nor vice versa.

[Oniya]

I dunno - declaring that your own marriage should be able to be banned is certainly... something.

[Vekseid]

That paints the justices as incredibly biased and racist, yes. But that doesn't mean they're stupid. While I agree that racism is definitely bad, not everyone who is racist is necessarily stupid. We like to think they are, but that's not by itself proof they're stupid.

Going against the majority also isn't necessarily a sign of stupidity. It could be a legitimate point, because even offering a minority opinion can have tremendous sway over how the law itself is interpreted. Case in point, here are some important dissenting opinions in the past.

Morality does not equate to intelligence, nor vice versa.

No, I mean read Dobbs.

Alito presents a lot of curious jurisprudence in general, and in Dobbs, to overturn Roe, it is all on display. From denying the right to privacy (a common theme of his because he doesn't think the 4th and 9th amendments mean what they say) to digging up laws from when abortion meant something very different than it is today. Overall, he doesn't have a whole lot of self-consistent logic.

Thomas' concurrence was rather infamous for citing himself so much. He can't find anyone else who thinks the way he does. I'm not sure if any justice has ever stepped so far as to outright say there are more decisions they should overturn in an opinion.

[Missy]

I dunno - declaring that your own marriage should be able to be banned is certainly... something.

it's one of the irony's of Thomas, if he managed to pull off what he and his 'friends' want, he'd end up just being America's Ernst Rhom.

[Missy]

That paints the justices as incredibly biased and racist, yes. But that doesn't mean they're stupid. While I agree that racism is definitely bad, not everyone who is racist is necessarily stupid. We like to think they are, but that's not by itself proof they're stupid.

Going against the majority also isn't necessarily a sign of stupidity. It could be a legitimate point, because even offering a minority opinion can have tremendous sway over how the law itself is interpreted. Case in point, here are some important dissenting opinions in the past.

Morality does not equate to intelligence, nor vice versa.

"My mother always said stupid is as stupid does"

Honestly it's one of the best quotes in existence even if it comes from a fictional character. You don't really need intelligence to be moral per se, however there's a whole philosophical argument to be made that amorality is stupid once you start looking at the big picture.

[Humble Scribe]

Life appointments does seem like a very strange way to run any branch of government. I mean who is appointed for life? Popes, monarchs, communist dictators... everyone else gets to retire once they become too old and infirm to do the job. British judges can serve up until they are 75, at which point they must retire, and that seems a pretty reasonable retirement age to me. That would remove Thomas next year and Alito the year after.

[GloomCookie]

To be fair, the lifetime appointment is to try and avoid partisan elections that could sway the court's opinion, though given RBG tried desperately to hold on until after the election so her seat wouldn't be filled by a conservative shows that even in the court partisan politics can still hold sway. There's also that many justices retire before they die regardless of who's in power because they know they can't do the job.

I honestly think the entire term limits debate could be spun off into it's own thread given that it can apply to Congress as well.