Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When (if ever) it's appropriate to make jokes before the US Supreme Court

scotusblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: When (if ever) it's appropriate to make jokes before the US Supreme Court

#51

Post by akramachamarei »

You'll see many comments here complaining about the corruption or partisanship of the Supreme Court. Notably, though, no actual accusations of bribery (gifts to judges from people not involved in cases is not bribery), nor are any opinions articulated on mistakes made by the court in its majorities. Which is to be expected, Hackernews is not populated by lawyers, after all!

I can certainly empathize with people who don't like the outcomes of some recent SCOTUS decisions. I don't like the outcome of Dobbs for example. But picking outcomes is emphatically not the job of the judicial branch, that is Congress' job. The judicial branch is supposed to interpret laws and the Constitution as accurately as possible, but not write them.

N.b. some interesting stats: in the 2024 term, for example, ~40% cases were unanimously decided, and only about 1 in 11 were split along ideological lines, according to this study from scotusblog (ideology calculated as Martin-Quinn score): https://cdn.sanity.io/files/pito4za5/production/d8301fc26d15...

Re: When (if ever) it's appropriate to make jokes before the US Supreme Court

#52

Post by akramachamarei »

margalabargala wrote: post #25
copper-float wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm unfamiliar with this, can you elaborate?

They're probably referring to the millions of dollars of gifts Clarence Thomas received over the years, often just prior to ruling in the gift giver's favor. Here's the source I'm sure you'll want: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli... It's a big surprising thing to hear about for the first time! Glad to help you become familiar.

Note that, when you say "ruling in the gift givers favor," we should be careful not to imply that the gift givers were involved in any Supreme Court cases. At least, not Harlan Crow, who is the big name on this topic, was not involved in a SCOTUS case during Thomas' tenure. Not sure about the other gift givers. Presumably, someone would have pointed out by now if Thomas had received gifts from a party to case, and more likely he would have already recused before that became an issue.

Re: When (if ever) it's appropriate to make jokes before the US Supreme Court

#53

Post by tastyface »

akramachamarei wrote: post #51

You'll see many comments here complaining about the corruption or partisanship of the Supreme Court. Notably, though, no actual accusations of bribery (gifts to judges from people not involved in cases is not bribery), nor are any opinions articulated on mistakes made by the court in its majorities. Which is to be expected, Hackernews is not populated by lawyers, after all! I can certainly empathize with people who d…

"gifts to judges from people not involved in cases is not bribery"

Uhhh, yeah that's a big there bud.

If a prominent party member gifts you lavish vacations and you subsequently decide cases along party lines, what else would you call that?

Re: When (if ever) it's appropriate to make jokes before the US Supreme Court

#54

Post by croon »

akramachamarei wrote: post #52
margalabargala wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're probably referring to the millions of dollars of gifts Clarence Thomas received over the years, often just prior to ruling in the gift giver's favor. Here's the source I'm sure you'll want: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli... It's a big surprising thing to hear about for the first time! Glad to help you become familiar.

Note that, when you say "ruling in the gift givers favor," we should be careful not to imply that the gift givers were involved in any Supreme Court cases. At least, not Harlan Crow, who is the big name on this topic, was not involved in a SCOTUS case during Thomas' tenure. Not sure about the other gift givers. Presumably, someone would have pointed out by now if Thomas had received gifts from a party to case, and mo…

What is a good faith/steelman reason for these gifts to exist at all?

Re: When (if ever) it's appropriate to make jokes before the US Supreme Court

#55

Post by Arodex »

akramachamarei wrote: post #51

You'll see many comments here complaining about the corruption or partisanship of the Supreme Court. Notably, though, no actual accusations of bribery (gifts to judges from people not involved in cases is not bribery), nor are any opinions articulated on mistakes made by the court in its majorities. Which is to be expected, Hackernews is not populated by lawyers, after all! I can certainly empathize with people who d…

>The judicial branch is supposed to interpret laws and the Constitution as accurately as possible, but not write them.

Yes, it is very obvious the Constitution said the president is immune. And the recent decision on the VRA is completely based on the interpretation that there is no more racial discrimination - which fell apart in the days after.

>N.b. some interesting stats: in the 2024 term, for example, ~40% cases were unanimously decided

Now do the statistics for 2025-2026, cherrypicker.

Re: When (if ever) it's appropriate to make jokes before the US Supreme Court

#56

Post by halJordan »

Arodex wrote: post #55
akramachamarei wrote: post #51

You'll see many comments here complaining about the corruption or partisanship of the Supreme Court. Notably, though, no actual accusations of bribery (gifts to judges from people not involved in cases is not bribery), nor are any opinions articulated on mistakes made by the court in its majorities. Which is to be expected, Hackernews is not populated by lawyers, after all! I can certainly empathize with people who d…

>The judicial branch is supposed to interpret laws and the Constitution as accurately as possible, but not write them. Yes, it is very obvious the Constitution said the president is immune. And the recent decision on the VRA is completely based on the interpretation that there is no more racial discrimination - which fell apart in the days after. >N.b. some interesting stats: in the 2024 term, for example, ~40% cases…

Of this comment and the its parent, this is the comment hurting America. It's unrepentantly belligerent and sarcastic without actually trying prove its contrarian view. You could have at least provided the 2025/6 statistics you claim disprove something. But instead you just levy an insult. All in all, F for effort in being a productive member of society

Re: When (if ever) it's appropriate to make jokes before the US Supreme Court

#58

Post by croon »

halJordan wrote: post #56
Arodex wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The judicial branch is supposed to interpret laws and the Constitution as accurately as possible, but not write them. Yes, it is very obvious the Constitution said the president is immune. And the recent decision on the VRA is completely based on the interpretation that there is no more racial discrimination - which fell apart in the days after. >N.b. some interesting stats: in the 2024 term, for example, ~40% cases…

Of this comment and the its parent, this is the comment hurting America. It's unrepentantly belligerent and sarcastic without actually trying prove its contrarian view. You could have at least provided the 2025/6 statistics you claim disprove something. But instead you just levy an insult. All in all, F for effort in being a productive member of society

I struggle with this daily. If two comments state the opposite, and one is "constructive" in framing, and one is antagonistic, I agree it's easier to carry the conversation with the former. But if the latter is the factually correct one, I'm not sure it's the one "hurting America", at least comparatively. This is an assumption made by me in service of the hypothetical.

In general, I think debates (the school competition kind/internet spectacle kind) focuses entirely to much on perception, and very little on content, in that whoever wins is completely disjoint from who if any is actually right. Though I suppose it's easier to police/moderate the presentation than the veracity.

TL;DR: I agree with you in general, all else being equal, but that's not always the case.

Re: When (if ever) it's appropriate to make jokes before the US Supreme Court

#59

Post by Arodex »

halJordan wrote: post #56
Arodex wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The judicial branch is supposed to interpret laws and the Constitution as accurately as possible, but not write them. Yes, it is very obvious the Constitution said the president is immune. And the recent decision on the VRA is completely based on the interpretation that there is no more racial discrimination - which fell apart in the days after. >N.b. some interesting stats: in the 2024 term, for example, ~40% cases…

Of this comment and the its parent, this is the comment hurting America. It's unrepentantly belligerent and sarcastic without actually trying prove its contrarian view. You could have at least provided the 2025/6 statistics you claim disprove something. But instead you just levy an insult. All in all, F for effort in being a productive member of society

What is hurting America is bad faith and bullshit. Not "belligerence" nor sarcasm.

This constant appeal to civility only serves to stamp down any discussion. One side is doing ugly things, but the other is put down the second they dare use a bad word or are even slightly snarky.

The parent comment is lying and manipulating his ass off - of course he is, why would he willingly mention statistics from 2024 when we are in 2026? He did it on purpose; but you find offense in my comment because I dare point it out in a not-kind-enough way. Not even unkind nor insulting: not kind enough. I am even called "contrarian". Words stopped meaning anything, apparently.

Re: When (if ever) it's appropriate to make jokes before the US Supreme Court

#60

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

akramachamarei wrote: post #52
margalabargala wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're probably referring to the millions of dollars of gifts Clarence Thomas received over the years, often just prior to ruling in the gift giver's favor. Here's the source I'm sure you'll want: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli... It's a big surprising thing to hear about for the first time! Glad to help you become familiar.

Note that, when you say "ruling in the gift givers favor," we should be careful not to imply that the gift givers were involved in any Supreme Court cases. At least, not Harlan Crow, who is the big name on this topic, was not involved in a SCOTUS case during Thomas' tenure. Not sure about the other gift givers. Presumably, someone would have pointed out by now if Thomas had received gifts from a party to case, and mo…

> we should be careful not to imply that the gift givers were involved in any Supreme Court cases

Why does this matter? I'm not involved in any SC case but if I showed up at Clarence Thomas's door with $10 asking him to rule a certain way on a case I'm interested in, it would be called bribery by any sane definition.

Post reply on HN