onfocus

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.

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?"

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.

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.

[Trump] and the six unnamed co-conspirators told these GOP officials in seven states what illegal acts they should do and how they should do them. Those communications are not protected speech. They are instructions on how to commit fraud.

You can’t extend plausible deniability infinitely. We all saw this crime happen in real time despite the constant gaslighting posing as legal nuance.

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.

…this completely foreseeable, undeniable risk — one that every single one of us contends with every time we gather with our old friends — is completely unremarked-upon.

The age of the federal political class is painful to think about, but so true. Another reason we need a wide variety of representation in Congress. Thanks for the added anxiety, Cory Doctorow.

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.

The decision reverses decades of precedent upheld over the years by narrow court majorities that included Republican-appointed justices. It could end the ability of colleges and universities — public and private — to do what most say they still need to do: consider race as one of many factors in deciding which of the qualified applicants is to be admitted.

It shouldn't be surprising that a court with no ethical standards makes unethical rulings but it's still disgusting to see billionaires get what they paid for: hurting the vulnerable and shoring up the wealthy's already abundant advantages.

"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.

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.

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.