The justices are not going to fix their ethics problems. So, and at the risk of repeating myself, we really need to stop treating them like they're special.
Couldn’t agree more. America was founded on rejecting the idea that some sovereign or supreme persons should rule over us. But SCOTUS has maneuvered its way into this position over the centuries and it is far past time to reassert the balance of power and that no one (are you listening trump, DeSantis?) and no body can assume absolute supremacy over our nation.
Thanks Chris. A one-sided commentary is by default an advocacy narrative. As a legal journalist myself, I advocate explaining both sides of a story and an issue. Judicial deviation from rules is a conservative transgression if you are excluding critique of (let's say) liberal justices. Cancel culture and the false equivalency standard of progressive advocates is pure partisanship, not legal scholarship, no matter how much lipstick is put on that pig (so-to-speak). Thanks for your thoughts, Chris.
I couldn’t agree more. If you look at the whole history of the court it becomes clear that they have traditionally been a body that is at odds with progress and more often act to protect the wealthy and the powerful. From Dred Scott to Plessy, anti-New Deal decisions, pro-corporate decisions, Bush v. Gore (a blatantly partisan power grab) to Shelby County, and most recently Dobbs and West Virginia, there is a very clear pattern. Question is, when can we officially declare the court illegitimate and start ignoring their decisions?
But then there is the issue of "someone" on the court trying to sabotage their own process of deliberation by "leaking" the Alito majority opinion in Dobbs v Jackson. If your opinion essays are going to earn their claims of independent "legal and political journalism that seeks to hold government and other public officials accountable," then identifying "conservative" justices for critique and exempting other voices, is going to disqualify you from any claim of independence.
You can correct this imbalance if you can defend your claim of independence by referencing "liberal" offenses. Please don't hide a liberal bias by excluding conservative points of view as illegitimate.
Couldn’t agree more. America was founded on rejecting the idea that some sovereign or supreme persons should rule over us. But SCOTUS has maneuvered its way into this position over the centuries and it is far past time to reassert the balance of power and that no one (are you listening trump, DeSantis?) and no body can assume absolute supremacy over our nation.
Thank you Mr. Gender, for continuing to shine the light
on a court of justices, along with the excellent news investigations, into the same
highest court in our country.
They make decisions that affect millions of people for
their entire lives. They should
be held accountable for any
outside influence that effects
their rulings.
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
Okay ...
Thanks Chris. A one-sided commentary is by default an advocacy narrative. As a legal journalist myself, I advocate explaining both sides of a story and an issue. Judicial deviation from rules is a conservative transgression if you are excluding critique of (let's say) liberal justices. Cancel culture and the false equivalency standard of progressive advocates is pure partisanship, not legal scholarship, no matter how much lipstick is put on that pig (so-to-speak). Thanks for your thoughts, Chris.
I couldn’t agree more. If you look at the whole history of the court it becomes clear that they have traditionally been a body that is at odds with progress and more often act to protect the wealthy and the powerful. From Dred Scott to Plessy, anti-New Deal decisions, pro-corporate decisions, Bush v. Gore (a blatantly partisan power grab) to Shelby County, and most recently Dobbs and West Virginia, there is a very clear pattern. Question is, when can we officially declare the court illegitimate and start ignoring their decisions?
But then there is the issue of "someone" on the court trying to sabotage their own process of deliberation by "leaking" the Alito majority opinion in Dobbs v Jackson. If your opinion essays are going to earn their claims of independent "legal and political journalism that seeks to hold government and other public officials accountable," then identifying "conservative" justices for critique and exempting other voices, is going to disqualify you from any claim of independence.
You can correct this imbalance if you can defend your claim of independence by referencing "liberal" offenses. Please don't hide a liberal bias by excluding conservative points of view as illegitimate.
you have several excellent points concerning the shady practices/ ethical lapses of the members of the Court.
however, if you wish to include
" .... the court’s continued aversion to transparency."
you might do well to provide some material explaining why SCOTUS might have any obligation to transparency
or
why it should