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

Post by margalabargala » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:28 PM UTC

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…

Post by akramachamarei » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:34 PM UTC

croon wrote: post #54

akramachamarei wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by akramachamarei » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:50 PM UTC

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…

Post by UncleMeat » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

akramachamarei wrote: post #64

tastyface wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

Citation needed? Refer to a dictionary ;). I think the big question mark is on "you subsequently decide cases along party lines." Citation needed? This I think is the major stumbling block in the public perception of the court. It's ideological divides aren't always the one's in the vernacular. I looked at one of the more vehement and thorough articles alleging the thing you are, and it was pretty unconvincing: https…

Post by UncleMeat » Mon, May 25, 2026, 5:56 PM UTC

litoE wrote: post #40

chabes wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama should have picked a replacement for RBG. Biden and the democratic congress should have done more to get the judiciary back in line. They had their opportunities.

RBG passed away while Trump was president. Obama did pick a replacement for Antonin Scalia though: Merrick Garland. Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to even give Garland a hearing arguing it was "too close to the presidential election", even though Obama's term had about one year to go.