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)   Supreme Court decides that it is none of your business who their spouses legally represent, take money from, or plot an insurrection with   (politico.com) divider line
    More: Murica, Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Alito, justice's husband, Supreme Court, John G. Roberts, justices' spouses, court's work, Chief Justice John Roberts' wife  
•       •       •

2939 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Sep 2022 at 10:49 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



92 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-09-29 5:22:55 PM  
Well it isn't.   If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.    The Justices do this not infrequently when they have friends, family or former close colleagues involved in a case, or when they've been in a position directly arguing a case such as when J. Kagan was solicitor general, she bowed out of cases on which she previously worked in that post.
 
2022-09-29 5:24:06 PM  
Must be nice.
 
2022-09-29 6:00:31 PM  

feckingmorons: Well it isn't.   If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.    The Justices do this not infrequently when they have friends, family or former close colleagues involved in a case, or when they've been in a position directly arguing a case such as when J. Kagan was solicitor general, she bowed out of cases on which she previously worked in that post.


...if anyone wants to find out whether Jesse Barrett's clients have a direct interest in cases being decided by his wife, they're out of luck.
[Ginny's] husband, Justice Clarence Thomas, has chosen not to reveal any of his wife's clients, let alone how much they contributed to the Thomas family coffers, dating back to when her consulting business was founded.
Mark Jungers, a former managing partner at Major, Lindsey & Africa, the firm that employed Jane Roberts as a legal recruiter before she moved to Macrae, told POLITICO the firm hired her hoping it would benefit from her being the chief justice's wife, in part, because "her network is his network and vice versa."

Ketanji Brown Jackson... noted in a disclosure form filed earlier this year, while serving as a lower-court judge, that she had previously left out "self-employed consulting income that my spouse periodically receives from consulting on medical malpractice cases." Like in the cases of Thomas, Barrett and Roberts, the names of his clients were not included in the filing.
Former religious right leader Rob Schenck has said the organization he led for more than 20 years, Faith and Action, engaged in an elaborate scheme to play on the justices' financial insecurities by recruiting wealthy couples to "wine and dine" the court's conservative members./ not that you'd ever actually read TFA// don't pretend it's all hunky-dory, though
 
2022-09-29 7:33:00 PM  

feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.


It's more complicated than that.

If a district judge or appellate judge refuses to recuse, you can at least appeal to the next highest level. If someone like Thomas or Kagan refuses to recuse, there is zero recourse.
 
2022-09-29 8:44:13 PM  

Outshined_One: feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

It's more complicated than that.

If a district judge or appellate judge refuses to recuse, you can at least appeal to the next highest level. If someone like Thomas or Kagan refuses to recuse, there is zero recourse.


You seem to feel that a judge's conduct is nefarious, I feel exactly the opposite way. 

Also judges can be impeached so to say there is no recourse is not exactly correct.
 
2022-09-29 9:16:02 PM  

feckingmorons: Outshined_One: feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

It's more complicated than that.

If a district judge or appellate judge refuses to recuse, you can at least appeal to the next highest level. If someone like Thomas or Kagan refuses to recuse, there is zero recourse.

You seem to feel that a judge's conduct is nefarious, I feel exactly the opposite way. 

Also judges can be impeached so to say there is no recourse is not exactly correct.


Not nefarious? What else would you call reversing a nearly 50-year precedent (after lying to the Senate under oath) and reducing American women to brood mares?

My days of not taking anything you say seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
 
2022-09-29 9:16:55 PM  
If all of SCOTUS were ethical and abided by the code of ethics every other Judge in the system has to follow it wouldn't be an issue. The problem is 3 of the recent republicans justices have lied repeatedly in testimony before Congress and there is legitimate questions about one's gambling debt just disappearing before confirmation hearings. The republican theocratic justices are simply unethical and can't be trusted to run a frozen banana stand let alone be on the Court. Thomas didn't even recuse on something directly involving his wife.
 
2022-09-29 9:27:35 PM  

feckingmorons: Outshined_One: feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

It's more complicated than that.

If a district judge or appellate judge refuses to recuse, you can at least appeal to the next highest level. If someone like Thomas or Kagan refuses to recuse, there is zero recourse.

You seem to feel that a judge's conduct is nefarious, I feel exactly the opposite way. 

Also judges can be impeached so to say there is no recourse is not exactly correct.


I come from a state where judges have been indicted and convicted for literal cash payments across the bench. I've known plenty of upstanding and stalwart judges, but I've seen my share of people who didn't meet those qualifications.

Additionally, impeachment is for high crimes and misdemeanors. Failure to recuse due to a potential conflict of interest is neither.
 
2022-09-29 9:38:48 PM  
Once both parties are covered in tar and feathers, who's to say which one the spouse is?
 
2022-09-29 10:44:06 PM  

Farking Clown Shoes: Not nefarious? What else would you call reversing a nearly 50-year precedent (after lying to the Senate under oath)


Nobody lied to the Senate, judges can't provide opinions about how they might vote on a case, that is unethical.  They shouldn't even be asked questions that suggest something like that.   There are no hypothetical cases, that is not allowed.

Their ruling was correct, there was no Constitutional basis for the prior ruling in Roe, it is an issue best decided by the states.

Congress could make a law about the matter to apply nationwide, but they had five decades to do it and haven't do so yet, so don't hold your breath.
 
2022-09-29 10:51:04 PM  
Hm, I'm left wondering how the founding fathers might have handled this?
 
2022-09-29 10:52:44 PM  

ProbablyDrunk: Hm, I'm left wondering how the founding fathers might have handled this?


A duel?
 
2022-09-29 10:53:30 PM  

feckingmorons: Outshined_One: feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

It's more complicated than that.

If a district judge or appellate judge refuses to recuse, you can at least appeal to the next highest level. If someone like Thomas or Kagan refuses to recuse, there is zero recourse.

You seem to feel that a judge's conduct is nefarious, I feel exactly the opposite way. 

Also judges can be impeached so to say there is no recourse is not exactly correct.


media.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2022-09-29 10:55:55 PM  

cheeseaholic: ProbablyDrunk: Hm, I'm left wondering how the founding fathers might have handled this?

A duel?


The fascists will absolutely keep pushing until there is violent push back or they've won.  In which case you're on course to be Russia.  Look how well that's going!
 
2022-09-29 10:56:10 PM  
I love the smell of entitlement in the morning

/get out of the way
 
2022-09-29 10:57:28 PM  
Dear Judges,

YOU were nominated. Not your spouses. If they're gonna do crimin', then it IS our business to know.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-09-29 10:58:06 PM  
If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

Just like they won't overturn Roe v. Wade, eh?

/Also, the whole point is we don't know which cases their spouses could be involved in...
 
2022-09-29 11:00:03 PM  
They are in the highest court in the nation and their integrity should reflect that .. If they're not comfortable being held to that standard , step aside and let someone else do it ..
 
2022-09-29 11:01:05 PM  
Why do you all try to have an honest discussion with a dishonest actor who only know right makes right?
 
2022-09-29 11:02:12 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


Jesse is just waiting for you to make a smartmouth crack about how his jacket fits.
 
2022-09-29 11:02:28 PM  

feckingmorons: Well it isn't.   If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.    The Justices do this not infrequently when they have friends, family or former close colleagues involved in a case, or when they've been in a position directly arguing a case such as when J. Kagan was solicitor general, she bowed out of cases on which she previously worked in that post.


Yes, the ethical judges with liberal reality leanings tend to do that.

Now try Barrett.
 
2022-09-29 11:03:01 PM  

Smock Pot: Must be nice.


Not really. You have to fark Amy Coney Barrett or Clarence Thomas.
 
2022-09-29 11:05:48 PM  

ProbablyDrunk: Hm, I'm left wondering how the founding fathers might have handled this?


Something involving a crystal flute and band camp?
 
2022-09-29 11:09:19 PM  
Cool cool cool

Let's see SCOTUS enforce their decrees.

/ expand the court
 
2022-09-29 11:09:57 PM  
feckingmorons:

You seem to feel that a judge's conduct is nefarious

Given the conduct of the current 6 conservative justices, describing it as "nefarious" is approaching an English understatement.
 
2022-09-29 11:10:00 PM  
I'm glad that we decided not to implement any judicial reforms to protect the legitimacy and civility of the Supreme Court.
 
2022-09-29 11:10:06 PM  
Why the fark are they allowed to make the rules for their own jobs.

We are their bosses and need to remember that.

No you don't get to hide what your spouse does for work. No you don't get to hide shiat from us.

You want one of the most powerful jobs in the country your ass better be as see through as a window and you best expect every thing you do with money will be well documented for the course of the employment.

Don't like it. Don't do the job.
 
2022-09-29 11:10:22 PM  

feckingmorons: Nobody lied to the Senate


LoL!

Not that I think America can DO anything with republicans as corrupt as they are; but don't try to tell us perjury didn't happen, we can read the transcripts of questioning on Roe v Wade, specifically about established legal precedence.
 
2022-09-29 11:12:12 PM  

feckingmorons: Well it isn't.   If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.


Bullshiat. Thomas has already declined to do so.

https://www.businessinsider.com/clarence-thomas-only-justice-dissent-in-trump-january-6-bid-2022-3?op=1

https://www.newsweek.com/virginia-thomas-pressed-mark-meadows-overturn-2020-election-texts-show-1691696
 
2022-09-29 11:13:17 PM  

IlGreven: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

Just like they won't overturn Roe v. Wade, eh?

/Also, the whole point is we don't know which cases their spouses could be involved in...


Citizens United proved that statement to be a lie as both Scalia and Thomas were both receiving direct payments
from the Koch brothers at the time the ruling came down.
 
2022-09-29 11:15:08 PM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Cool cool cool

Let's see SCOTUS enforce their decrees.

/ expand the court


Expanding the court legitimizes the game by implicitly accepting the presence of the illegitimate justices.  The illegitimate justices have to be removed to repair the situation.
 
2022-09-29 11:16:54 PM  
The Supreme Court of the United States has had any and all vestiges of fairness or impartiality destroyed, again, by the Conservative packing of the court with pliant buffons.

Until such time as the court can be trusted with anything above a parking ticket, it should be treated as such.
 
2022-09-29 11:17:09 PM  

Unsung_Hero: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Cool cool cool

Let's see SCOTUS enforce their decrees.

/ expand the court

Expanding the court legitimizes the game by implicitly accepting the presence of the illegitimate justices.  The illegitimate justices have to be removed to repair the situation.


Ok let's impeach them as AOC suggested then
 
2022-09-29 11:17:38 PM  

feckingmorons: Outshined_One: feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

It's more complicated than that.

If a district judge or appellate judge refuses to recuse, you can at least appeal to the next highest level. If someone like Thomas or Kagan refuses to recuse, there is zero recourse.

You seem to feel that a judge's conduct is nefarious, I feel exactly the opposite way. 

Also judges can be impeached so to say there is no recourse is not exactly correct.


Your insurance against common financial corruption is something that has happened exactly once in the history of the United States.

How reassuring.

Keep continuing to be the dictionary definition of "username checks out", dude.
 
2022-09-29 11:17:40 PM  

Theeng: The Supreme Court of the United States has had any and all vestiges of fairness or impartiality destroyed, again, by the Conservative packing of the court with pliant buffons.

Until such time as the court can be trusted with anything above a parking ticket, it should be treated as such.


Honestly at this point it should be dissolved and reconstituted with all new justices.
 
2022-09-29 11:18:02 PM  

feckingmorons: Their ruling was correct, there was no Constitutional basis for the prior ruling in Roe, it is an issue best decided by the states.


The 9th Amendment says you and the Republican cronies on the Court are full of shiat, and leaving basic human rights to the states is how we got a farking civil war.
 
2022-09-29 11:18:09 PM  

Deucednuisance: feckingmorons: Outshined_One: feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

It's more complicated than that.

If a district judge or appellate judge refuses to recuse, you can at least appeal to the next highest level. If someone like Thomas or Kagan refuses to recuse, there is zero recourse.

You seem to feel that a judge's conduct is nefarious, I feel exactly the opposite way. 

Also judges can be impeached so to say there is no recourse is not exactly correct.

Your insurance against common financial corruption is something that has happened exactly once in the history of the United States.

How reassuring.

Keep continuing to be the dictionary definition of "username checks out", dude.


Seriously how can one be so consistently stupid
 
2022-09-29 11:20:41 PM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Deucednuisance: feckingmorons: Outshined_One: feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

It's more complicated than that.

If a district judge or appellate judge refuses to recuse, you can at least appeal to the next highest level. If someone like Thomas or Kagan refuses to recuse, there is zero recourse.

You seem to feel that a judge's conduct is nefarious, I feel exactly the opposite way. 

Also judges can be impeached so to say there is no recourse is not exactly correct.

Your insurance against common financial corruption is something that has happened exactly once in the history of the United States.

How reassuring.

Keep continuing to be the dictionary definition of "username checks out", dude.

Seriously how can one be so consistently stupid


Its his schtik
 
2022-09-29 11:32:15 PM  

feckingmorons: Well it isn't.   If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.    The Justices do this not infrequently when they have friends, family or former close colleagues involved in a case, or when they've been in a position directly arguing a case such as when J. Kagan was solicitor general, she bowed out of cases on which she previously worked in that post.


I am strongly of the opinion that you are nearly entirely wrong

Your position is is that if there's any potential conflict with their spouse they will automatically recuse themselves. This is not how disclosure was supposed to work, a blind trust. The point of disclosure is that people's judgment can be questioned by others.

The issue was clearly not if they're spouse themself is directly involved in some way but if they stand to gain personally or financially. If I'm married to somebody and they make $100,000 that's certainly helps me. If the case before the court is something to do with, let's say fossil fuels, and the spouse of one of the judges is representing a company who will tremendously profit from the outcome, that's a conflict of interest. That company May entice the spouse to influence the judge, and if you think such things are impossible you clearly don't understand how human beings were, because ain't none of us perfect

I'm a researcher, and if I work on a product or on a topic in which my spouse might conceivably have some relationship, direct or indirect, or does any kind of potential financial gain from we are my spouse, direct to indirect, I'm supposed to disclose that.  Nobody says oh Chawco, trust him to make balanced decisions on what's acceptable conflict or not. No, they expect me to disclose any even remote peripheral Conflict for me or my spouse or even another close family member

Some of the worst things that happened in my case are maybe we find support for something that doesn't really deserve to be supported. Generally speaking new treatment medication or interventions or any of that kind of stuff don't come out of one study, so in a perfect world if a scientist fails to properly disclose the damage should be fairly minimal. Should be

The Supreme Court have ultimate power. Nobody can stop them, citizens united is a perfect example of a decision that basically says Congress cant control election spending.


They should be held to the highest possible standards of disclosure and impartiality and recusal. Anything else is a potential travesty of Justice

Not that they care.
 
2022-09-29 11:32:48 PM  
Ps dictated but not red
 
2022-09-29 11:46:05 PM  

RasIanI: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: Deucednuisance: feckingmorons: Outshined_One: feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

It's more complicated than that.

If a district judge or appellate judge refuses to recuse, you can at least appeal to the next highest level. If someone like Thomas or Kagan refuses to recuse, there is zero recourse.

You seem to feel that a judge's conduct is nefarious, I feel exactly the opposite way. 

Also judges can be impeached so to say there is no recourse is not exactly correct.

Your insurance against common financial corruption is something that has happened exactly once in the history of the United States.

How reassuring.

Keep continuing to be the dictionary definition of "username checks out", dude.

Seriously how can one be so consistently stupid

Its his schtik


I think you misspelled "capacity".
 
2022-09-29 11:59:55 PM  

feckingmorons: Well it isn't.   If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.    The Justices do this not infrequently when they have friends, family or former close colleagues involved in a case, or when they've been in a position directly arguing a case such as when J. Kagan was solicitor general, she bowed out of cases on which she previously worked in that post.


Are you really this ignorant?
 
2022-09-30 12:00:28 AM  
th.bing.comView Full Size
 
2022-09-30 12:01:21 AM  
Alito to SCOTUS critics: 'Questioning our integrity crosses an important line'

Also Alito to SCOTUS critics: 'We get to make our own rules on conflict of interest, because fark you.'
 
2022-09-30 12:03:50 AM  
Privacy for me, not for thee.
 
2022-09-30 12:06:50 AM  
Sounds like Congress needs to start asking the IRS for tax documents.
 
2022-09-30 12:10:07 AM  

feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.


You lie. Thomas has not recused himself in a case involving his wife.
 
2022-09-30 12:10:30 AM  

Sporkabob: Sounds like Congress needs to start asking the IRS for tax documents.


sounds like congress needs to pass some laws regarding judicial ethics and conflicts of interest with regards to the scotus.
 
2022-09-30 12:11:30 AM  

mcmnky: feckingmorons: If a case in which their spouse is involved comes before the Comes before the court they will recuse themselves.

You lie. Thomas has not recused himself in a case involving his wife.


matter of fact he was the lone dissenting voice when it came to getting her text messages via Meadows
 
2022-09-30 12:15:38 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Sporkabob: Sounds like Congress needs to start asking the IRS for tax documents.

sounds like congress needs to pass some laws regarding judicial ethics and conflicts of interest with regards to the scotus.


I don't think that would stand up as it would be one branch interfering with another. Need to get at it constitutionally.
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


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.