The Supremes

[wildcat09 29591]

And remember, James Ho thinks Yale Law is too woke and that no conservative judge should hire any clerks from there.

[hobbes2702 13488]

On 4/27/2023 at 7:53 AM, DDD Dad said:

Unpopular opinion here but I don’t get the outrage over the Gorsuch story. If i understand the story correctly he was a part owner of a vacation home that sold on the open market below listing price.

If the issue is that the failure to disclose the buyer on his reporting form is some evidence of malfeasance, okay. But it is a FAR cry from the sort of shit Clarance has been up to with his personal pal Harlan, who loves him just because they have so much in common, and not because Harlan wants any preferential treatment. 

Why are we judging corruption by the level that Clarence Thomas operates at? What Gorsuch did is a massive ethics violation and he should be removed from the court for it. Clarence has nothing to do with it

[hobbes2702 13488]

On 4/27/2023 at 9:42 AM, Dahobbs said:

I agree with this. The non-disclosure is definitely problematic and is an example why we need more concrete ethical guidelines for Supreme Court Justices. But I don't believe there is much here to indicate some nefarious purpose behind the purchase of the property. 

If there is nothing nefarious then why not disclose it?

[Gil Bang 26244]

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Gil Bang

[Skipper 6411]

19 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

If there is nothing nefarious then why not disclose it?

There is a less than zero chance that (i) if you are 20% owner of a property that sells for less than list you have no idea who the buyer is and never need to sign any documentation in connection with the sale (unless you are the designated manager or authorized signatory of the agency), and just pass along your wire instructions to get paid your cut and (ii) if he happened to see the name of the buyer, he may have no idea he is the head of GT.  I'm a partner at a large law firm. I have absolutely no idea who the managing partner/CEO is at any other law firm other than my own.

[Satchel 6982]

What happened to doing all you can to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?

[safe sex 12017]

Why the fuck do they get such a benefit of the doubt? What have they done lately to show that they deserve a little grace? 

[wildcat09 29591]

6 minutes ago, Skipper said:

There is a less than zero chance that (i) if you are 20% owner of a property that sells for less than list you have no idea who the buyer is and never need to sign any documentation in connection with the sale (unless you are the designated manager or authorized signatory of the agency), and just pass along your wire instructions to get paid your cut and (ii) if he happened to see the name of the buyer, he may have no idea he is the head of GT.  I'm a partner at a large law firm. I have absolutely no idea who the managing partner/CEO is at any other law firm other than my own.

It's certainly possible. But federal judges, and especially SCOTUS justices, should be completely above reproach. At the very least, he should have to recuse himself whenever GT is before the Court. And I think they should be bound by ethics requirements that would require him to know who the buyer is in a deal like this and, if it could even possibly foreseeably lead to an appearance of impropriety, find another buyer. 

With respect to the new reporting about how much John Roberts' wife made steering attorneys to elite law firms, there should be similar rules. Frankly, I don't think he should be able to serve on the Court at all as long as his wife is doing that shit.

Is that unfair? I don't give a shit. If you don't want your personal finances to be combed over, if you want your spouse to be able to work whatever job she wants without raising these issues in public, don't take the fucking job.

[Skipper 6411]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's certainly possible. But federal judges, and especially SCOTUS justices, should be completely above reproach. At the very least, he should have to recuse himself whenever GT is before the Court. And I think they should be bound by ethics requirements that would require him to know who the buyer is in a deal like this and, if it could even possibly foreseeably lead to an appearance of impropriety, find another buyer. 

Because someone bought a property he owned 20% of?  Really?  I feel like non-lawyers on this thread have absolutely no idea how large law firms operate.  They are apolitical.  They aren't republicans or democrats as an entity.  They are capitalists that largely don't give a shit who their client is or what their position is as long as they pay the bills. And within firms you have the same spectrum of ultra D's and ultra R's as you would expect.  Pretty sure I saw this individual at GT was primarily a D donor.  And in any event do you think this guy at GT is going around telling clients they are going to get a favorable ruling in a fucking supreme court case because a justice netted a few hundred K on a property sale that by all means appears to be an arms length transaction? 

But by all means everyone should stay outraged at all times about every little thing reported in headlines or on twitter meant to fire up their team and generate clicks.  This feels like a Fox News story that I would equally be rolling my eyes about if it were Sotomayor.

 

[Dahobbs 18327]

24 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's certainly possible. But federal judges, and especially SCOTUS justices, should be completely above reproach. At the very least, he should have to recuse himself whenever GT is before the Court. And I think they should be bound by ethics requirements that would require him to know who the buyer is in a deal like this and, if it could even possibly foreseeably lead to an appearance of impropriety, find another buyer. 

 

28 minutes ago, Satchel said:

What happened to doing all you can to avoid even the appearance of impropriety?

I agree with both the bold above. That is how it should be. And I believe Gorsuch not disclosing it should be an ethical violation. However, I also believe that the issue in Gorsuch's case is the appearance of impropriety and not actual impropriety. Nothing about the transaction triggers any real red flags for me and I would find it completely believable that he had no idea who the purchaser was. 

[Gil Bang 26244]

Let me just point out that Duke Cunningham went down over a similar real estate deal.

[David Dennison 19553]

 

[wildcat09 29591]

11 minutes ago, Skipper said:

Because someone bought a property he owned 20% of?  Really?  I feel like non-lawyers on this thread have absolutely no idea how large law firms operate.  They are apolitical.  They aren't republicans or democrats as an entity.  They are capitalists that largely don't give a shit who their client is or what their position is as long as they pay the bills. And within firms you have the same spectrum of ultra D's and ultra R's as you would expect.  Pretty sure I saw this individual at GT was primarily a D donor.  And in any event do you think this guy at GT is going around telling clients they are going to get a favorable ruling in a fucking supreme court case because a justice netted a few hundred K on a property sale that by all means appears to be an arms length transaction? 

But by all means everyone should stay outraged at all times about every little thing reported in headlines or on twitter meant to fire up their team and generate clicks.  This feels like a Fox News story that I would equally be rolling my eyes about if it were Sotomayor.

 

This is largely irrelevant to the point. Hell, the partisan shit is less obviously susceptible to financial influence because at least a judge has a partisan bias already. It's only partisan insofar as being financially corrupt has become a point of pride among the conservative legal establishment. But there's all sorts of nonpartisan cases in which I'm sure countless lawyers and firms would be more than happy to shell out big money to get more favorable treatment from a judge, or even just the hope of more favorable treatment. And these justices are all pretty obviously enjoying all the "hospitality" their positions have made available to them.

Sure, it's not like anyone is handing anyone a bag of money with a dollar sign on the side and a note that says "bribe for favorable ruling on X." It's more subtle and professional than that. But all of this shit has very clearly gone too far. There is absolutely no way that John Roberts or anyone else on the Court is capable of taking tens of millions of dollars from select law firms without letting it impact his judgement.  There's a reason legislators are generally prohibited from accepting gifts from lobbyists worth over $50.

Maybe you disagree with the limit. Maybe you don't think that $10 million could sway Roberts, but I bet you think $100 million could. I don't think anyone here actually thinks that anyone is impervious to being influenced by large sums of money. At most, we're arguing over what price they'll whore themselves out at. And that's the problem and why we should have the strictest ethical requirements and even stories like Gorsuch's should make people mad. Because we have no fucking idea what Gorsuch's price is. 

[Skipper 6411]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

So it's presumably been known by anyone that cared to check linkedin that his wife worked as a legal recruiter since 2007 but now we are to be outraged that she made money in that profession (which, by the way, is not an uncommon transition at all for former big firm lawyers tired of the grind)?  Absent something more to this, another non-story.   If we were to be outraged about this seems like it should have been at some point in the 18 years prior.

[Carl Spackler 3615]

On 4/27/2023 at 5:53 AM, DDD Dad said:

Unpopular opinion here but I don’t get the outrage over the Gorsuch story. If i understand the story correctly he was a part owner of a vacation home that sold on the open market below listing price.

If the issue is that the failure to disclose the buyer on his reporting form is some evidence of malfeasance, okay. But it is a FAR cry from the sort of shit Clarance has been up to with his personal pal Harlan, who loves him just because they have so much in common, and not because Harlan wants any preferential treatment. 

From what I've read, Gorsuch realized a profit of between $250K and $500K from the sale.  The sale was to the prior chair of the litigation section of Greenberg Traurig, which regularly represents litigants in matters on the SCOTUS docket.  If you were representing the party on the other side of the table from the Greenberg-represented party, don't you think you would be raising your eyebrows over that information?  The shadiness is exacerbated by the fact that Gorsuch apparently has disclosed the names of persons who have given him relatively piddly gifts such as a pair of cowboy boots and a fishing rod, but for some reason did not report the name of the person who made this particular property purchase from him.  Guess he just forgot to fill in that particular blank. 

If the sale was below listing price, I suppose it makes Gorsuch look a tad better, but not much.  The proverbial bottom line is that he made a sizable six-figure profit from the sale, and the purchaser was a big swinging dick in a law firm that regularly appears before him.  If anything, one could make the argument that this is even worse than what Thomas has done because in Thomas' case the person showering him with gifts was merely a wealthy Republican who was not a party to any of the cases on the SCOTUS docket, whereas in Gorsuch's case the person who paid a price that allowed Gorsuch to realize a six-figure profit is a member of a law firm that regularly appears before Gorsuch. 

Frankly, both Thomas and Gorsuch stink to high heaven.  

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Carl Spackler

[Carl Spackler 3615]

3 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

Furk -- double post.  

 

 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Carl Spackler

[David Dennison 19553]

Just now, Skipper said:

So it's presumably been known by anyone that cared to check linkedin that his wife worked as a legal recruiter since 2007 but now we are to be outraged that she made money in that profession (which, by the way, is not an uncommon transition at all for former big firm lawyers tired of the grind)?  Absent something more to this, another non-story.   If we were to be outraged about this seems like it should have been at some point in the 18 years prior.

It's just more information for voters. Whether they are outraged is up to them.

[Skipper 6411]

2 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

From what I've read, Gorsuch realized a profit of between $250K and $500K from the sale. 

 

He had a 20% stake.  Cash sale proceeds were $365K.   We have no idea what the mortgage or cost basis in the property is but clearly "profit" is way less than $365K.  No, I don't think any litigators going up against GT would give 2 shits about this.   

[Skipper 6411]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

It's just more information for voters. Whether they are outraged is up to them.

It's information that has been public for 18 years.  Why do people suddenly care now?  I'm just trying to make a point.  We all laugh at the sensationalized headlines and outrage stories that dominate Fox News and right wing news.   This is the equivalent from the left from what I can tell.

[Carl Spackler 3615]

7 minutes ago, Skipper said:

So it's presumably been known by anyone that cared to check linkedin that his wife worked as a legal recruiter since 2007 but now we are to be outraged that she made money in that profession (which, by the way, is not an uncommon transition at all for former big firm lawyers tired of the grind)?  Absent something more to this, another non-story.   If we were to be outraged about this seems like it should have been at some point in the 18 years prior.

Working as a legal recruiter itself isn't the issue.  The troubling part would be the fact (if that allegation is to be believed) that she was paid substantial fees by law firms representing litigants in cases being decided by a court of which her husband is the CJ.  I have no idea if that allegation is true, though.    

[wildcat09 29591]

2 minutes ago, Skipper said:

So it's presumably been known by anyone that cared to check linkedin that his wife worked as a legal recruiter since 2007 but now we are to be outraged that she made money in that profession (which, by the way, is not an uncommon transition at all for former big firm lawyers tired of the grind)?  Absent something more to this, another non-story.   If we were to be outraged about this seems like it should have been at some point in the 18 years prior.

We've discussed it in this thread before. And I don't care that it might be innocent. They don't have to take the fucking job. Jimmy Carter sold his fucking peanut farm, let's treat these lifetime superlegislators at least as strictly. You want to make money investing in real estate? Go do that, but you can't be on SCOTUS. You want to be married to someone who makes millions of dollars from law firms? Cool, go do literally anything else other than be a federal judge. I'm sure she'd be able to support you if you have trouble finding work.

If they're not willing to accept these limitations, why should we trust anything they say or respect any decision they make? The position is supposed to be one of public trust. It's supposed to pay what we pay them and nothing more. If they want the job AND all of the extra benefits they're all getting these days, why the hell should anyone think that it's not those benefits that are what matter most to them?

[Carl Spackler 3615]

3 minutes ago, Skipper said:

He had a 20% stake.  Cash sale proceeds were $365K.   We have no idea what the mortgage or cost basis in the property is but clearly "profit" is way less than $365K.  No, I don't think any litigators going up against GT would give 2 shits about this.   

I'm simply going by a news report I read which stated that "Gorsuch reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale."  I'm not sure what the source is for your statement that "[c]ash sale proceeds were $365K," but from the reports I've read I suspect that the $365K figure is actually Gorsuch's cut of the profits from the sale.  At least that's what he supposedly reported on federal disclosure forms.  

And I think you're wrong about whether the opposing parties or opposing counsel would care about this fact.  I know I would.  And I'm pretty sure my clients would as well.      

[David Dennison 19553]

5 minutes ago, Skipper said:

It's information that has been public for 18 years.  Why do people suddenly care now?  I'm just trying to make a point.  We all laugh at the sensationalized headlines and outrage stories that dominate Fox News and right wing news.   This is the equivalent from the left from what I can tell.

It might have something to do with the current ethics scandal. But I'm just guessing.

[Skipper 6411]

Just now, Carl Spackler said:

Working as a legal recruiter itself isn't the issue.  The troubling part would be the fact (if that allegation is to be believed) that she was paid substantial fees by law firms representing litigants in cases being decided by a court of which her husband is the CJ.  I have no idea if that allegation is true, though.    

If she's a legal recruiter of course she was paid fees by law firms with business before the court.  That's the nature of the job.   If that was your job and you couldn't do business with any firm that ever had business before the court, well, you would have a pretty shitty career.  But, to your point, if one were to argue that she shouldn't have this career given her husband's position, that argument could have been made anytime in the last 16 years.  Why now?

I'm just saying, this is typical of modern media.   Someone gets a scoop on Thomas which results in absolute justifiable outrage.  Great story, real reporting, etc. etc.

People then start digging on every other conservative justice and presents complete non-stories as equal bits of outrage that don't remotely resemble anything like the Thomas situation but concluding (every conservative justice is corrupt, etc. etc.).  And liberal twitter eats it up.  The same thing happens constantly on the other side on the issue of the day.  

Everyone just retweets and rages depending on their political leanings without any analysis of whether they should in fact be outraged.  I digress, back to work.

[wildcat09 29591]

Just now, Skipper said:

If she's a legal recruiter of course she was paid fees by law firms with business before the court.  That's the nature of the job.   If that was your job and you couldn't do business with any firm that ever had business before the court, well, you would have a pretty shitty career.  But, to your point, if one were to argue that she shouldn't have this career given her husband's position, that argument could have been made anytime in the last 16 years.  Why now?

I'm just saying, this is typical of modern media.   Someone gets a scoop on Thomas which results in absolute justifiable outrage.  Great story, real reporting, etc. etc.

People then start digging on every other conservative justice and presents complete non-stories as equal bits of outrage that don't remotely resemble anything like the Thomas situation but concluding (every conservative justice is corrupt, etc. etc.).  And liberal twitter eats it up.  The same thing happens constantly on the other side on the issue of the day.  

Everyone just retweets and rages depending on their political leanings without any analysis of whether they should in fact be outraged.  I digress, back to work.

Because that's just how shit works man. Even a ton of the Thomas shit wasn't new, his relationship with Crow was first reported on in like 2011 and there's been a number of reports about his failures to report Ginni's income properly over the past decade. Not enough people were alarmed by the prior stories though because they never are. Shit, Trump was friendly with nazis in 2015 and not nearly enough people were alarmed by it. That doesn't make later reporting about new nazi shit and people's anger over it suspect.

[David Dennison 19553]

4 minutes ago, Skipper said:

If she's a legal recruiter of course she was paid fees by law firms with business before the court.  That's the nature of the job.   If that was your job and you couldn't do business with any firm that ever had business before the court, well, you would have a pretty shitty career.  But, to your point, if one were to argue that she shouldn't have this career given her husband's position, that argument could have been made anytime in the last 16 years.  Why now?

I'm just saying, this is typical of modern media.   Someone gets a scoop on Thomas which results in absolute justifiable outrage.  Great story, real reporting, etc. etc.

People then start digging on every other conservative justice and presents complete non-stories as equal bits of outrage that don't remotely resemble anything like the Thomas situation but concluding (every conservative justice is corrupt, etc. etc.).  And liberal twitter eats it up.  The same thing happens constantly on the other side on the issue of the day.  

Everyone just retweets and rages depending on their political leanings without any analysis of whether they should in fact be outraged.  I digress, back to work.

Again, and I'm just guessing, it might have something to do with the fact that her husband is the Chief Justice of a United States Supreme Court that is currently in the middle of a historic ethics scandal. 

[Skipper 6411]

2 minutes ago, Carl Spackler said:

I'm simply going by a news report I read which stated that "Gorsuch reported making between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale."  I'm not sure what the source is for your statement that "[c]ash sale proceeds were $365K," but from the reports I've read I suspect that the $365K figure is actually Gorsuch's cut of the profits from the sale.  At least that's what he supposedly reported on federal disclosure forms.  

And I think you're wrong about whether the opposing parties or opposing counsel would care about this fact.  I know I would.  And I'm pretty sure my clients would as well.      

The sales price of the property was $1,825,000.  Owning 20% of a property worth $1.8 is simply not meaningful.   If it was leveraged he almost certainly had less than $200K invested out of pocket.  Likely way less if he made any meaningful profit.  I'm in several investments like this and  I will never have any idea who buys any property.  I just send a wire in and get a wire back a few years later.

[Skipper 6411]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Again, and I'm just guessing, it might have something to do with the fact that her husband is the Chief Justice of a United States Supreme Court that is currently in the middle of a historic ethics scandal. 

He was appointed in 2005.  You are telling me reporters, colleagues, anyone with business before the court that cared to use google, or literally any other interested person, hasn't known that his wife has a job that is, by definition, getting paid to recruit for large law firms, since 2007?  There was no hiding the ball here.  Anyone that cared to know could simply use google.

[Carl Spackler 3615]

28 minutes ago, Skipper said:

If she's a legal recruiter of course she was paid fees by law firms with business before the court.  That's the nature of the job.   If that was your job and you couldn't do business with any firm that ever had business before the court, well, you would have a pretty shitty career.  But, to your point, if one were to argue that she shouldn't have this career given her husband's position, that argument could have been made anytime in the last 16 years.  Why now?

I'm just saying, this is typical of modern media.   Someone gets a scoop on Thomas which results in absolute justifiable outrage.  Great story, real reporting, etc. etc.

People then start digging on every other conservative justice and presents complete non-stories as equal bits of outrage that don't remotely resemble anything like the Thomas situation but concluding (every conservative justice is corrupt, etc. etc.).  And liberal twitter eats it up.  The same thing happens constantly on the other side on the issue of the day.  

Everyone just retweets and rages depending on their political leanings without any analysis of whether they should in fact be outraged.  I digress, back to work.

I never said Mrs. Roberts did anything illegal or that her husband did anything illegal or unethical.  (I also noted that I wasn't sure if the allegation was true -- it's just an assertion at this point.)  I simply said it would be "troubling" if she did, in fact, make seven figures in commissions from placements made with law firms that regularly appear before the Supreme Court because at least a portion of that money would presumably inure to the benefit of her husband pursuant to applicable marital property laws.  It could be that, as you postulated, she was simply doing her job in ordinary fashion.  OTOH, I note that the affidavit of the whistleblower says that one of her placements with Wilmer, Hale (a firm that appears a lot before the SCOTUS) resulted not only in extraordinary compensation for the attorney who was placed (which, in turn, would mean more commissions for Mrs. Roberts), but also resulted in the opening of a new Wilmer Hale office in Denver, CO.  That last part sounds somewhat farfetched to me (and is based on hearsay, i.e., based on the statement of some unnamed third person), and it's one of the reasons that I'm reserving judgment -- these allegations just haven't been sufficiently vetted yet.  But if only a fraction of that affidavit is true, it still raises some troubling questions. 

I understand your point about the media.  I'm sure the recent revelations about Thomas and Gorsuch have sparked a spate of digging around by reporters concerning other justices on the court, and have created an environment that is ripe for this latest allegation about Roberts. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by Carl Spackler

[Carl Spackler 3615]

24 minutes ago, Skipper said:

He was appointed in 2005.  You are telling me reporters, colleagues, anyone with business before the court that cared to use google, or literally any other interested person, hasn't known that his wife has a job that is, by definition, getting paid to recruit for large law firms, since 2007?  There was no hiding the ball here.  Anyone that cared to know could simply use google.

I suppose it depends on exactly what categories of information were reported previously.  If she reported her income and the fact that her commissions were derived in substantial part from placements with law firms that regularly appear before SCOTUS, then I guess it would be old news.  But I suspect that the info about the sources of her commissions may have been unknown until this whistleblower came forward, and that's the part that makes it really interesting from a judicial ethics standpoint.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Carl Spackler

[Carl Spackler 3615]

12 minutes ago, Skipper said:

The sales price of the property was $1,825,000.  Owning 20% of a property worth $1.8 is simply not meaningful.   If it was leveraged he almost certainly had less than $200K invested out of pocket.  Likely way less if he made any meaningful profit.  I'm in several investments like this and  I will never have any idea who buys any property.  I just send a wire in and get a wire back a few years later.

I guess we would need to know what Gorsuch and the other former owners of the property originally paid for it in order to have a clearer idea of whether the $365K is Gorsuch's share of the profits or the overall profits that were realized from the sale.  But, like I said, the reports indicate that Gorsuch reported realizing a profit between $250K and $500K.    

But putting that aside, the big difference between your situation and Gorsuch's is that he's a federal jurist with income and gift reporting obligations, and you aren't.  So when you say that owning 20% of a sale property worth $1.8M isn't a big deal, that may be true in your context, but I can assure you that isn't the case in Gorsuch's situation.  As an example, he was reporting the receipt and the identity of the donor of mundane items such as a fly-casting rod.  He wasn't reporting the receipt of those items because he wanted to -- he did it because he's legally required to do so.  But for whatever reason, he didn't report the identity of the person from whom he realized a profit from the sale of that CO property.  Strange . . .    

[David Dennison 19553]

17 minutes ago, Skipper said:

He was appointed in 2005.  You are telling me reporters, colleagues, anyone with business before the court that cared to use google, or literally any other interested person, hasn't known that his wife has a job that is, by definition, getting paid to recruit for large law firms, since 2007?  There was no hiding the ball here.  Anyone that cared to know could simply use google.

Maybe, but the reason it's attracting more attention now is because of the other news coming from her husband's Supreme Court.

[Gil Bang 26244]

 

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Gil Bang

[Nivek 17415]

3 hours ago, Skipper said:

It's information that has been public for 18 years.  Why do people suddenly care now?  I'm just trying to make a point.  We all laugh at the sensationalized headlines and outrage stories that dominate Fox News and right wing news.   This is the equivalent from the left from what I can tell.

That navy fellow leaked those secrets months ago to Discord,  lol, why are you outraged now?  

[Nivek 17415]

29 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34106]

apropos to nothing lately, but i remember seeing this live and thought it was incredibly strange. still is

 

[Stilicho 1422]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

Yeah. Fuck that dude. 

Too many of these conserva-fuck justices are obsessed with their legacy, especially in the legal field.

Going to be a real pleasure watching his burn down with the rest of them.

[Dahobbs 18327]

49 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

Yeah. Fuck that dude. 

Too many of these conserva-fuck justices are obsessed with their legacy, especially in the legal field.

Going to be a real pleasure watching his burn down with the rest of them.

Alito's reputation as a complete shitstain remains unblemished. 

[Smax 3800]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

That is embarrassing but shows how tone death the court is, they all need to be replaced

[NotActuallyALonghorn 5004]

On 4/25/2023 at 11:13 PM, Stilicho said:

As a law student, having gotten a peak behind the curtain, I don't have a lot of faith in SCOTUS. Most of that can be tied directly to the "originalism shift" and the lack of any... logic of reasoning to a lot of Supreme Court caselaw. That being said, if the Sotomayor, Kagan, et al. have been on the take, stand them up and try them right alongside the fundamentalists.

If ever there's been this much concerted push from the public, Congress, and President calling for Supreme Court reform, I cannot remember it. Unless it was the conservative flip post-Miranda, which was before my time anyhow.

In any event, this is the best shot the country has had at forcing some rules on these motherfuckers. I hope folks keep digging. 

Legitimately curious here, but what exactly do you think is wrong with the general idea of "originalism?" And a follow up, what sort of strategy do you think SCOTUS should employ to interpret the Constitution that wouldn't lead to long term turmoil? It's hard to argue to you believe in civil rights if you are opposed to originalism, but at the same time there are the same problems with believing in both civil rights and originalism, as most of our founding fathers didn't exactly have an exemplary record on the issue.

[Anastasis 23723]

political ops, how do they work?

[HenryJames 67393]

11 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

 

 

 

[Nivek 17415]

The supreme court continues to demonstrate why they need serious oversight, and how money buys judges like it does everyone else.

[South Austin 53228]

9 hours ago, Smax said:

That is embarrassing but shows how tone death the court is, they all need to be replaced

*tone def

[DDD Dad 14654]

19 minutes ago, South Austin said:

*tone def

Deftones

[Bullneck 19540]

17 hours ago, Skipper said:

Because someone bought a property he owned 20% of?  Really?  I feel like non-lawyers on this thread have absolutely no idea how large law firms operate.  They are apolitical.  They aren't republicans or democrats as an entity.  They are capitalists that largely don't give a shit who their client is or what their position is as long as they pay the bills. And within firms you have the same spectrum of ultra D's and ultra R's as you would expect.  Pretty sure I saw this individual at GT was primarily a D donor.  And in any event do you think this guy at GT is going around telling clients they are going to get a favorable ruling in a fucking supreme court case because a justice netted a few hundred K on a property sale that by all means appears to be an arms length transaction? 

But by all means everyone should stay outraged at all times about every little thing reported in headlines or on twitter meant to fire up their team and generate clicks.  This feels like a Fox News story that I would equally be rolling my eyes about if it were Sotomayor.

 

I just skimmed your post but in general is seems like you're trying very hard to justify his action with "I'm too busy and important to pay attention to small details" when you know the details are the important part.

Also, I don't believe you don't know any other law firm CEOs.  You don't have friends or enemies at other firms?  You don't keep up with the goings on at where you used to work?

The republican supremes suck and you know it.  Stop making excuses.  LIke it's been posted already, whatever happened to being a model of behavior rather than thinking "I'm important now, let me use that to get rich."

Public. Service.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Bullneck

[Bullneck 19540]

8 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Legitimately curious here, but what exactly do you think is wrong with the general idea of "originalism?" And a follow up, what sort of strategy do you think SCOTUS should employ to interpret the Constitution that wouldn't lead to long term turmoil? It's hard to argue to you believe in civil rights if you are opposed to originalism, but at the same time there are the same problems with believing in both civil rights and originalism, as most of our founding fathers didn't exactly have an exemplary record on the issue.

Oxford Dictionary: a type of judicial interpretation of a constitution (especially the US Constitution) that aims to follow how it would have been understood or was intended to be understood at the time it was written.

We don't live in the 1700s.

Things have changed.  People have changed. Countries have changed.  Our country is 20 times bigger than it was back then.  We've been to moon.  We've transplanted hearts and livers. We've found the Titanic. Everyone has a thing on their desk that connects us to the world.  Things have evolved.  

And as usual, you probably think "originalism" is good when applied to things you like, and bad when it works against you. 

Edited April 29, 2023 by Bullneck

[Bullneck 19540]

12 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

apropos to nothing lately, but i remember seeing this live and thought it was incredibly strange. still is

 

Brett thought she needed a pat (or a few pats) on the back.

[hobbes2702 13488]

8 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Legitimately curious here, but what exactly do you think is wrong with the general idea of "originalism?" And a follow up, what sort of strategy do you think SCOTUS should employ to interpret the Constitution that wouldn't lead to long term turmoil? It's hard to argue to you believe in civil rights if you are opposed to originalism, but at the same time there are the same problems with believing in both civil rights and originalism, as most of our founding fathers didn't exactly have an exemplary record on the issue.

The constitution is a relic and we shouldn’t rely on the opinions of slave owners to govern us in 2023

[Bullneck 19540]

I have concluded from this post that your time is WAY too valuable to be wasted here because you are Big Time.  But he's a Supreme Court justice.  He has a day job, doing that.  

Do you have a special dictionary for the word "meaningful?"  

16 hours ago, Skipper said:

The sales price of the property was $1,825,000.  Owning 20% of a property worth $1.8 is simply not meaningful.   If it was leveraged he almost certainly had less than $200K invested out of pocket.  Likely way less if he made any meaningful profit.  I'm in several investments like this and  I will never have any idea who buys any property.  I just send a wire in and get a wire back a few years later.

Edited April 29, 2023 by Bullneck