MennoNet.com

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... t-00104106

I think this is a fairly objective analysis of the Supreme Court. The following sentence from the article is what I have been concluding.

Finally, that the conservatives justices don’t necessarily vote in lockstep is a sign that they are legitimately thinking through cases and aren’t toeing a preconceived political line.

It seems to me that the chief justice and the newest appointees are particularly thinking through issues rather than always voting the way their preferred party wants them to vote.

Ernie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:27 am https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... t-00104106

I think this is a fairly objective analysis of the Supreme Court. The following sentence from the article is what I have been concluding.

Finally, that the conservatives justices don’t necessarily vote in lockstep is a sign that they are legitimately thinking through cases and aren’t toeing a preconceived political line.

It seems to me that the chief justice and the newest appointees are particularly thinking through issues rather than always voting the way their preferred party wants them to vote.

Sounds like they were good appointees?

Ernie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:27 am https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... t-00104106

I think this is a fairly objective analysis of the Supreme Court. The following sentence from the article is what I have been concluding.

Finally, that the conservatives justices don’t necessarily vote in lockstep is a sign that they are legitimately thinking through cases and aren’t toeing a preconceived political line.

It seems to me that the chief justice and the newest appointees are particularly thinking through issues rather than always voting the way their preferred party wants them to vote.

And I would argue Thomas and Alito have been doing this since they were appointed.

Convicted ideologues are known for their passions, not wisdom.
“an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.”

Jesus Christ is wisdom.

Ernie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 7:27 am https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... t-00104106

I think this is a fairly objective analysis of the Supreme Court. The following sentence from the article is what I have been concluding.

Finally, that the conservatives justices don’t necessarily vote in lockstep is a sign that they are legitimately thinking through cases and aren’t toeing a preconceived political line.

It seems to me that the chief justice and the newest appointees are particularly thinking through issues rather than always voting the way their preferred party wants them to vote.

And I would argue Thomas and Alito have been doing this since they were appointed. I am pleased to say I have seen a few non-ideological decisions from Jackson, J., in contrast to her predecessor.

Such decisions will help unify the country and restore a shared sense of justice instead of having a country with half the country hating the other half.

When I read the title I though this thread was going to be about all the corruption and bribery and lack of ethics standards going on in the Supreme Court in 2023.

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 3:38 pm When I read the title I though this thread was going to be about all the corruption and bribery and lack of ethics standards going on in the Supreme Court in 2023.

I was unaware any such things have happened. Can you point me to any Justices breaking any laws?

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:25 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 3:38 pm When I read the title I though this thread was going to be about all the corruption and bribery and lack of ethics standards going on in the Supreme Court in 2023.

I was unaware any such things have happened. Can you point me to any Justices breaking any laws?

I said corruption and bribery.

Conveniently the Supreme Court has made it so that those things are perfectly LEGAL if you are on the Supreme Court. Because, in fact, they have no actual ethical standards and object to having any imposed on them.

In numerous examples, SCOTUS members took large sums of money from billionaires and then later did not recuse themselves, but ruled in their favor, when issues that directly affected them came before the court. That is corruption and bribery by any standard except for the Supreme Court.

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:31 pm

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:25 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 3:38 pm When I read the title I though this thread was going to be about all the corruption and bribery and lack of ethics standards going on in the Supreme Court in 2023.

I was unaware any such things have happened. Can you point me to any Justices breaking any laws?

I said corruption and bribery.

Conveniently the Supreme Court has made it so that those things are perfectly LEGAL if you are on the Supreme Court. Because, in fact, they have no actual ethical standards and object to having any imposed on them.

Untrue. The Supreme Court does not pass any laws or make things legal or illegal.

The scotus determines its own ethical standards but Congress may impeach any Justice for any reason. The Constitution requires a clear separation of powers.

As far as I know, no Justices have done anything illegal or “unethical”.

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:41 pm

Ken wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:31 pm

Josh wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 4:25 pm

I was unaware any such things have happened. Can you point me to any Justices breaking any laws?

I said corruption and bribery.

Conveniently the Supreme Court has made it so that those things are perfectly LEGAL if you are on the Supreme Court. Because, in fact, they have no actual ethical standards and object to having any imposed on them.

Untrue. The Supreme Court does not pass any laws or make things legal or illegal.

The scotus determines its own ethical standards but Congress may impeach any Justice for any reason. The Constitution requires a clear separation of powers.

As far as I know, no Justices have done anything illegal or “unethical”.

In numerous instances, Justices have taken money and large gifts from billionaire donors and then ruled in their favor rather than recusing themselves. That is unethical and tantamount to bribery under any definition of the term. The fact that it is legal doesn't make it any less unethical.

Everyone else who works in government (except for Congress) is held to a much higher standard and for good reason. Congress has its own corrupt practices that are also perfectly legal. But that is a subject for another thread.