(04-11-2023 09:36 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-11-2023 09:26 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(04-11-2023 09:20 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(04-11-2023 09:18 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Sorry if I think the 9 justices on the Supreme Court should be held to a higher standard than most.

Great. When he does something wrong, then we can talk about it.

Hard to prove subtle influence.

#'s said that Thomas always sides with the conservative vote and notes that this consistency is a sign that his vote cannot be bought.

How about the scenario where may think his conservative colleagues have something wrong but he sides with them anyway (doesn't want to anger any of his benefactors?). I'm not saying this has happened... I'm saying it is plausible and that's why strict ethical boundaries should be followed for Supreme Court justices.

Subtle influence... like every human being ever? Objectivity is a delusion. Everybody brings their biases to the table, and everybody is influenced by the people they associate with. A judge free of subtle influences would be truly terrifying... a psychopath utterly convinced of his own rightness and good judgement. Heck, there's nine of them so they can influence each other.

How about the scenario where he thinks they're wrong but he sides with them anyway because he doesn't rule according to his personal convictions? Wouldn't that look the same?

Of course it would. I'm just saying that the scenario that I offered was plausible and that's why ethical boundaries should be followed.

Quote:To meet your requirements, judges would have to lead austere and simple lives. Not impossible, but unlikely in our culture. Such people do exist - hermits, monks, people living off the grid - but vanishingly few of them have law degrees or pursue careers as judges, and they are very unlikely to move in the right circles to get nominated. You need to be realistic about the pool of qualified people.

LOL at idea that there is no middle ground between "hermit living off of the grid" and "Supreme Court justice that doesn't disclose incredible run of gifts given by a political operative over the course of 25 years".

You do see that I'm not even calling for him NOT to receive those gifts... I'm just saying that they should be disclosed!