corruption

CBS News
The subpoenas were approved following a contentious meeting in which Republicans accused their Democratic colleagues of attempting to undermine the Supreme Court by targeting private citizens.
Undermining how corrupt Supreme Court justices are beholden to billionaires is exactly the point.
ProPublica
The code, which does not include any enforcement mechanism, comes after ProPublica and other outlets disclosed that justices had repeatedly failed to disclose gifts and travel from wealthy donors.
LOL, just a perfect non-binding 'code' for a corrupt court. Like a petulant child, "There, we have a code of ethics. Happy?"
ProPublica
The law says that if there is “reasonable cause” to believe a judge “willfully” failed to disclose information they were required to, the conference should refer the matter to the U.S. attorney general, who can pursue penalties. But that would be unprecedented.
You know what else is unprecedented? A Supreme Court that is this corrupt and this dishonorable. It’s time for some unprecedented remedies like holding people accountable to existing rules.
ProPublica
This accounting of Thomas’ travel, revealed for the first time here from an array of previously unavailable information, is the fullest to date of the generosity that has regularly afforded Thomas a lifestyle far beyond what his income could provide. And it is almost certainly an undercount.
The corrupt court story gets worse and worse and worse. We need accountability.
The Nation
Alito, and the kinds of people who can afford to pay Alito, are bristling merely because justices are being investigated like any other public officials with power.
A+ headline
New York Times
The two men’s silence serves to obscure whether Justice Thomas had an obligation to report the arrangement under a federal ethics law that requires justices to disclose certain gifts, liabilities and other financial dealings that could pose conflicts of interest.
Yes, "friend" did some "financing" though I can think of other more accurate words. Corrupt court.
New York Times
The court, Kagan concluded, “exercises authority it does not have. It violates the Constitution.”

It’s a remarkable statement. To say that the Supreme Court can violate the Constitution is to reject the idea that the court is somehow outside the constitutional system. It is to remind the public that the court is as bound by the Constitution as the other branches, which is to say that it is subject to the same “checks and balances” as the legislature and the executive.
Another Supreme Court case based on no real injury with the sole purpose of overturning policy Republicans don’t like with zero accountability. Corrupt court continues and will for the foreseeable future.
Business Insider
"There need not be a specific case involving the drilling rights associated with a specific plot of land for Alito to understand what outcomes in environmental cases would buttress his family's net wealth," he told the outlet. "Alito does not have to come across like a drunken Paul Thomas Anderson character gleefully confessing to drinking our collective milkshakes in order to be a real life, run-of-the-mill political villain."
These aren’t the greatest cloistered legal minds sorting out America’s thorniest questions for the greater good. They’re striving asshole politicians getting what they can for themselves.
The New Republic
Despite the district court raising doubts about it representing a genuine inquiry from two men getting married—and the court didn’t even raise the real doubt that the couple does not exist—it is now part of the case history, a bit of fan fiction joining the other phantom gays the case invokes.
Incredible that a Supreme Court case hinges on fabricated information. No one was ever injured so why does the highest court need to provide a remedy?

Update: Of course.
ProPublica
Justices are almost entirely left to police themselves on ethical issues, with few restrictions on what gifts they can accept. When a potential conflict arises, the sole arbiter of whether a justice should step away from a case is the justice him or herself.
The corrupt court hits just keep on coming. This one has all the bells and whistles you've come to expect: billionaire, luxury vacation, business before the court, no recusal, and no ethics disclosure! See Also: Chamber of Secrets describing how the court has changed operations to be even less accountable for its decisions. It's not a good combined look if you're worried about court legitimacy.
The Lever
Thomas wrote a landmark Supreme Court opinion upholding the doctrine in 2005, but began questioning it a decade later, before eventually renouncing his past opinion in 2020 and claiming that the doctrine itself might be unconstitutional. Now, Thomas could help overturn the doctrine in a new case the high court just agreed to hear next term.
Corrupt court. You can put a price tag on overturning precedents. Happy to hear Ron Wyden is working on accountability but I’m skeptical there will ever be consequences.
Washington Post
The arrangement reveals that Leo, a longtime Federalist Society leader and friend of the Thomases, has functioned not only as an ideological ally of Clarence Thomas’s but also has worked to provide financial remuneration to his family. And it shows Leo arranging for the money to be drawn from a nonprofit that soon would have an interest before the court.
Corrupt court. We’re just going to keep doing these until someone does something I guess?
« Older posts