VOSS Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 Quote On Oct. 15, 1991, Clarence Thomas secured his seat on the Supreme Court, a narrow victory after a bruising confirmation fight that left him isolated and disillusioned. Within months, the new justice enjoyed a far-warmer acceptance to a second exclusive club: the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, named for the Gilded Age author whose rags-to-riches novels represented an aspirational version of Justice Thomas’s own bootstraps origin story. When he joined the Horatio Alger Association, Justice Thomas entered a world whose defining ethos of meritocratic success — that anyone can achieve the American dream with hard work, pluck and a little luck — was the embodiment of his own life philosophy, and a foundation of his jurisprudence. As he argued from the bench in his concurrence to the recent decision striking down affirmative action, the court should be “focusing on individuals as individuals,” rather than on the view that Americans are “all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society.” At Horatio Alger, he moved into the inner circle, a cluster of extraordinarily wealthy, largely conservative members who lionized him and all that he had achieved. While he has never held an official leadership position, in some ways he has become the association’s leading light. He has granted it unusual access to the Supreme Court, where every year he presides over the group’s signature event: a ceremony in the courtroom at which he places Horatio Alger medals around the necks of new lifetime members. One entrepreneur called it “the closest thing to being knighted in the United States.” At the same time, Justice Thomas has served as the group’s best messenger, meeting with and mentoring the recipients of millions of dollars a year in Horatio Alger college scholarships, many of whom come from backgrounds that mirror his own. His friendships forged through Horatio Alger have brought him proximity to a lifestyle of unimaginable material privilege. Over the years, his Horatio Alger friends have welcomed him at their vacation retreats, arranged V.I.P. access to sporting events and invited him to their lavish parties. In 2004, he joined celebrities including Oprah Winfrey and Ed McMahon at a three-day 70th birthday bash in Montana for the industrialist Dennis Washington. Several Horatio Alger friends also helped finance the marketing of a hagiographic documentary about the justice in the wake of an HBO film that had resurfaced Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations against him during his confirmation. a look at his tenure at the Horatio Alger Association, based on more than two dozen interviews and a review of public filings and internal documents, shows that Justice Thomas has received benefits — many of them previously unreported — from a broader cohort of wealthy and powerful friends. They have included major donors to conservative causes with broad policy and political interests and much at stake in Supreme Court decisions, even if they were not directly involved in the cases. Justice Thomas declined to respond to detailed questions from The New York Times. Full Article
ATRL Moderator feelslikeadream Posted July 9, 2023 ATRL Moderator Posted July 9, 2023 4 minutes ago, stjosephprey4us said: Can a SCJ be impeached? Yes.
Bears01 Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 3 minutes ago, stjosephprey4us said: Can a SCJ be impeached? By the house and senate. Need a majority in the house and a supermajority in the senate. OT: I’ll never forgive the old guard establishment Dems who controlled the senate and confirmed him anyway. This fucker has been on the court my entire life
Aston Martin Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 These exposés are so frustrating because nothing ever comes of them. Pack the ******* courts!
45seconds Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 7 minutes ago, stjosephprey4us said: Can a SCJ be impeached? Yes. They serve “in good behavior”. The problem is that the constitution literally doesnt say what constitutes bad behavior. He isn’t going anywhere.
45seconds Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 4 minutes ago, Aston Martin said: These exposés are so frustrating because nothing ever comes of them. Pack the ******* courts! Yeah it’s fun now since democrats want it. Once republicans get control (and they will) …then what?
Aston Martin Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 Just now, 45seconds said: Yeah it’s fun now since democrats want it. Once republicans get control (and they will) …then what? Republicans never play by the rules anyways. If we don't pack the courts, then Republicans will do the same **** once they get back in power (with the current SC in their favor) as they would if they took back power and packed the courts later. Whether we pack the courts or not, Republicans are going to federally ban abortion the second they get the chance. They'll take away any and all LGBTQ+ rights the second they get the chance. They are going to put us under a fascist theocracy the second they get the chance. Dems have been "playing by the rules" for decades, and look where that's gotten us. The fact of the matter is that abortion bans are killing women. Guns are killing people. Student loan debt is crippling the working class. LGBTQ+ rights are being eroded away under the guise of "religious freedom". We need a court that is going to rule in favor of these issues for the good of the people in this country. And if the general populace sees Democrats actually fight for their rights and succeed, they'll vote for them. Taking care of the American people should absolutely take precedent over worrying about what the Republicans will do. 4
Blue Monday Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 The way absolutely nothing will come of this blatant corruption except bad press and more "leave the supreme court alone you're being mean to us" bs from the justices
Communion Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 12 minutes ago, 45seconds said: Once republicans get control It's like every liberal is part of one singular CNN hivemind with no critical thinking skills. On 6/29/2023 at 8:17 PM, Communion said: 1) Judges are a non-partisan position. The word you're looking for is "liberal" but also, see below: 2) Bernie Sanders in 2020 ironically had a plan that answered that debacle. Whereas some liberaly~ Dems jumped on the idea of court expansion due to public backlash in 2020, and Biden flat out rejected the notion, Sanders came up with the idea of transforming the SCOTUS into a mechanism of rotating judges from federal courts that would make partisanship and ideological bias less impactful to decisions: .
45seconds Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 8 minutes ago, Aston Martin said: Republicans never play by the rules anyways. If we don't pack the courts, then Republicans will do the same **** once they get back in power (with the current SC in their favor) as they would if they took back power and packed the courts later. Whether we pack the courts or not, Republicans are going to federally ban abortion the second they get the chance. They'll take away any and all LGBTQ+ rights the second they get the chance. They are going to put us under a fascist theocracy the second they get the chance. Dems have been "playing by the rules" for decades, and look where that's gotten us. The fact of the matter is that abortion bans are killing women. Guns are killing people. Student loan debt is crippling the working class. LGBTQ+ rights are being eroded away under the guise of "religious freedom". We need a court that is going to rule in favor of these issues for the good of the people in this country. And if the general populace sees Democrats actually fight for their rights and succeed, they'll vote for them. Taking care of the American people should absolutely take precedent over worrying about what the Republicans will do. I don’t think you understand how this works. Your paragraph is an emotional take on this situation. Packing the court will do nothing. Adding a bunch of justices to give liberals the swing to bring back all those things is short sighted. The moment republicans regai control, they do the same and overturn the stuff that the previous court just did and so on and so on. It’ll just cause a back and forth that’ll upend everything every time a party gains executive power. It is not a viable fix to pack the court. I don’t think this is hard to understand.
Mordecai Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 The US Supreme Court being so politicised is so weird to me. Like, why is the president responsible for choosing justices? What happened to the separation of powers?
Hector Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 (edited) This demon needs to be impeached ASAP. A disgrace. Edited July 9, 2023 by Hector
Headlock Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 28 minutes ago, 45seconds said: I don’t think you understand how this works. Your paragraph is an emotional take on this situation. Packing the court will do nothing. Adding a bunch of justices to give liberals the swing to bring back all those things is short sighted. The moment republicans regai control, they do the same and overturn the stuff that the previous court just did and so on and so on. It’ll just cause a back and forth that’ll upend everything every time a party gains executive power. It is not a viable fix to pack the court. I don’t think this is hard to understand. So what is the ~viable fix~ oh great one?
Aston Martin Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 17 minutes ago, 45seconds said: I don’t think you understand how this works. Your paragraph is an emotional take on this situation. Packing the court will do nothing. Adding a bunch of justices to give liberals the swing to bring back all those things is short sighted. The moment republicans regai control, they do the same and overturn the stuff that the previous court just did and so on and so on. It’ll just cause a back and forth that’ll upend everything every time a party gains executive power. It is not a viable fix to pack the court. I don’t think this is hard to understand. And I don't think you understood what I'm saying. Dems do nothing and don't pack the courts: Federal abortion ban, LGBTQ+ rights gone, guns prioritized over people, no student loan forgiveness, ect. Republicans pack the courts if Dems do it first: Federal abortion ban, LGBTQ+ rights gone, guns prioritized over people, no student loan forgiveness, ect. Do you know what the difference between scenario one and scenario two is? While the first one is all but guaranteed, the second one is preventable. The second one also implies that there was a court that Dems successfully packed that reinstated abortion as a federally protected right, strengthened LGBTQ+ protections, allowed student loan forgiveness, and introduced gun control. Do you really want to live under a government that permanently takes these away versus one that will keep them around as long as they're possibly able to? All those aforementioned policies are very popular among the American populace. If US voters see one political party introducing and successfully implementing policies that give them more rights, then they will vote for them. There would be no Republicans taking back power because people would be motivated to come out and vote for Dems. People do not vote for complacency, they vote for tangible actions. Finally, I think it's naive to expect that Republicans wouldn't pack the Supreme Court even if Democrats don't. Let's say that Thomas and Alito kick the bucket between now and 2024. Biden appoints two liberal justices, and the Democrat Senate approves of them. If Republicans win the Presidency in 2024 (unlikely but not impossible) and the Senate in 2024 (they have a very favorable map), do you think Republicans would even hesitate to pack the court back in their favor? This is the same political party that tried to overthrow the results of a Presidential election that didn't go the way they wanted it to. We are dealing with an enemy that you think will play by the rules just because Dems do. They don't, so I don't think we should either, and letting the court go unchecked isn't going to guarantee anything other than pregnant women dying preventable deaths because federal Dems aren't doing everything possible to reinstate lost rights.
nadiamendell Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 The chances of him being impeached and being removed from office are even less than the chance of that happening to a president. The court has unchecked power at this point and can do what they want.
Vroom Vroom Posted July 9, 2023 Posted July 9, 2023 1 hour ago, Mordecai said: The US Supreme Court being so politicised is so weird to me. Like, why is the president responsible for choosing justices? What happened to the separation of powers? It’s a checks and balance system. The executive branch places judges and the legislative branch has the power to remove them. The problem is that Congress is extremely weak right now, which makes the judicial branch (and to some extend the executive branch) way too powerful which leads to the problems we are facing today
Recommended Posts