Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   A reminder that while there are rules governing retention of presidential records, Supreme Court justices can do whatever the fark they want with their papers   (politico.com) divider line
    More: PSA, Supreme Court of the United States, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Stephen Breyer, variety of other people, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

1697 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Aug 2022 at 6:16 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



26 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-08-19 12:19:05 PM  
Yes, well, we've seen there's been a whole lot of "whatever the fark they want" already, haven't we? This isn't a surprise.
 
2022-08-19 2:03:06 PM  
What educated person thought otherwise?
 
2022-08-19 6:18:08 PM  
That showed when beer bro had no legit explanation of how 200k in debt vanished
 
2022-08-19 6:19:32 PM  
Am I supposed to be outraged about this?
 
2022-08-19 6:19:43 PM  
One would assume if one held one's term on the Court in esteem, that one would want to preserve those documents to give future jurists and historians insight into one's rulings.

Which rules out at least 3 of current crop on the bench.
 
2022-08-19 6:20:39 PM  
Because we have a monarchy.
 
2022-08-19 6:23:40 PM  
Presidential records didn't become a legal thing until Nixon. Someone needs to really fark up and then ruin it for everyone else.

Maybe Thomas will be that fark up. But I doubt it.

/ANGH
 
2022-08-19 6:27:32 PM  
This isn't Nam , there are rules.
 
2022-08-19 6:32:08 PM  
Because the Supreme Court papers are jam packed with military secrets, including the nuclear codes.
 
2022-08-19 6:33:17 PM  

Snapper Carr: One would assume if one held one's term on the Court in esteem, that one would want to preserve those documents to give future jurists and historians insight into one's rulings.

Which rules out at least 3 of current crop on the bench.


Uncle Ruckus, Beerbro, and the Handmaiden at least.
 
2022-08-19 6:33:57 PM  
Draft opinions are meaningless compared with their final published judgements in the same way that there is no Academy Award for "best movie pitch" or "best rehearsal". The end product means everything, nothing else means anything.

Comparing Supreme Court notes and drafts with State Department cables about major world events, as TFA does, is bullshiat, highlighting some pretty severe desperation on the part of the author. Do better next time, Subby.
 
2022-08-19 6:36:31 PM  
The last thing you want is a blueprint getting out in the wild to see the nuts and bolts of how too make another country as awesome as America is
 
2022-08-19 6:42:47 PM  
I'm not sure why anybody would be surprised by this.

The Supreme Court has always been a "do as we say, not as we do" kind of institution. Especially lately, of course.
 
2022-08-19 6:44:34 PM  

Aussie_As: Draft opinions are meaningless compared with their final published judgements in the same way that there is no Academy Award for "best movie pitch" or "best rehearsal". The end product means everything, nothing else means anything.

Comparing Supreme Court notes and drafts with State Department cables about major world events, as TFA does, is bullshiat, highlighting some pretty severe desperation on the part of the author. Do better next time, Subby.


However comparing their communications with people outside the courts as well as their financial decisions around various cases could be enlightening.
 
2022-08-19 6:49:29 PM  

Theeng: Snapper Carr: One would assume if one held one's term on the Court in esteem, that one would want to preserve those documents to give future jurists and historians insight into one's rulings.

Which rules out at least 3 of current crop on the bench.

Uncle Ruckus, Beerbro, and the Handmaiden at least.


That is, in fact, who I had in mind.

Though I was going to call her OfDonald.
 
2022-08-19 7:03:02 PM  
What I don't like about the supreme court is that you pay too much for the extra ingredients that you can just add yourself when you get home. Myself, I order the regular court and have money left over to get a beverage.
 
2022-08-19 7:10:06 PM  
This is just like Nam, there are no rules
 
2022-08-19 7:13:54 PM  

Aussie_As: Draft opinions are meaningless compared with their final published judgements in the same way that there is no Academy Award for "best movie pitch" or "best rehearsal". The end product means everything, nothing else means anything.

Comparing Supreme Court notes and drafts with State Department cables about major world events, as TFA does, is bullshiat, highlighting some pretty severe desperation on the part of the author. Do better next time, Subby.


And all of the evidence and transcripts they use is filed with the court. Their discussions regarding cases are private, so I'd assume their scribbled notes and emails are too. In the end the court makes their decision and it's usually explained quite well. What records do people think they're hiding?
 
2022-08-19 7:16:13 PM  
Yeah, the Supreme Court has been doing whatever the fark it wants for a while now and nobody in a position of power really cares to change it.
 
2022-08-19 7:16:54 PM  
Wait, so there's an open seat at stake for a position in a branch of the government where being 1 of 5 majority can wield as much power as being 1 of 51 senators, but without facing election challenges, no ethics oversight, and no records retention regulation?

Seems like that 2016 election is shaping up to be pretty important.
 
2022-08-19 7:50:32 PM  
Rolling papers?

Fark user image
 
2022-08-19 7:50:59 PM  

Weatherkiss: Yeah, the Supreme Court has been doing whatever the fark it wants for a while now and nobody in a position of power really cares to change it.


"'President Roosevelt in essence offered the Supreme Court a choice between substantive policy and structural integrity,' he concludes. 'The court wisely chose to give up on the substantive issues and preserve its structural integrity.'

Buried on the Social Security Administration's website is an accurate summary of what really happened: 'The debate on this [expansion] proposal was heated, widespread and over in six months. The president would be decisively rebuffed, his reputation in history tarnished for all time. But the court, it seemed, got the message and suddenly shifted its course . . . the court would sustain a series of New Deal legislation, producing a 'constitutional revolution in the age of Roosevelt.''

As Roosevelt himself put it after the fight was over: 'We obtained 98 percent of all the objectives intended by the court plan.'

He was also overwhelmingly reelected to a historic third term a few years after the battle."

https://jacobin.com/2022/07/fdr-was-right-to-attack-the-supreme-courts-power-democrats-should-do-the-same-today

Take a hint, Democrats.
 
2022-08-19 8:05:03 PM  
The supreme court doesn't deal with classified information, so there's no paper control. In addition, everything they do is documented and preserved. Saying we need to keep everything is like requiring all draft copies of a book be preserved and venerated.
 
2022-08-19 8:35:20 PM  

justanotherfarkinfarker: That showed when beer bro had no legit explanation of how 200k in debt vanished


It still amazes me how an irrelevant non sequitur impresses so many people.

The comparison implied was to the preservation of Presidential records but that has no requirements to preserve records from before someone is sworn in a President. So logically, if it existed, a requirement for a SC Judge would apply to after they were sworn into office. Thus, whatever took place to buy out his gambling debts, it would not apply.

And of course, if you know anything about the Presidential Records Act, you know it was a law passed by Congress in response to Nixon. As we've never seen such a law passed for Congress Critters or Justices, of course there's no such requirement. I don't see a real justification for one, certainly not like the Presidential Records Act is justified.

But I guess this all goes into a hearty "Harrumph" where people just want to express general dissatisfaction with Things.
 
2022-08-20 6:04:39 AM  
I'm starting to think that the Supreme Court is a bad idea. We can start by not calling it Supreme anymore. And then making them accountable to some other body. This shiat is just bizarre.
 
2022-08-20 4:15:55 PM  
That reminds me of an exaspirated Texas lawyer who asked the judge if she could swot the oppoising council with his deposition. The judge said she could use the deposition however she wanted, so she swatted her honourable brother.

Precious. If more lawyers were violent, the world might be a safer place for us all.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.