Jim Hightower: The Supreme Court is Corrupt and Clueless

[babylonsister]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/jim-hightower/104800/the-supreme-court-is-corrupt-and-clueless


The Supreme Court is Corrupt and Clueless
by Jim Hightower | January 22, 2023 - 6:54am

snip//

The six-member, right-wing majority on this secretive powerhouse now routinely vetoes efforts by workers, environmentalists, students, local officials, voters, and all others who try to rein in corporate greed and abuses.

Appointed for lifetime terms, this autocratic tribune takes pride in being sealed off from democracy, even bragging that they make rulings without being influenced by “special interests.”

But in make-up and ideology, today’s court majority is a special interest itself, for it consists of corporate and right-wing lawyers who’ve obtained their wealth and position by loyally serving corporate power. And far from now being isolated from moneyed elites, the judges regularly socialize with them and attend their closed-door political meetings.

There’s even a special little club called the Supreme Court Historical Society that frequently reveals the cozy, symbiotic relationship that exists between today’s judicial and corporate cliques.

Such giants as Chevron, Goldman Sachs, AT&T, and Home Depot pay millions of dollars to this clubby society, gaining the notice and appreciation of the supremes. These special interest gifts to the court are gratefully accepted, even when the corporations have active cases before the court, seeking favorable rulings from the very judges they’re glad handing at Society soirees.

Of course, the judges insist there’s no conflict of interest, because this access to them is “open to all.” Sure — all who can pay $25,000 and up to get inside!

Yet the clueless judges wonder why their credibility is in the ditch.

[Easterncedar]

1. God that's depressing

Too awfully true

[Samrob]

2. And the six are liars as well. Don't forget that. nt

[appalachiablue]

3. K/R Go Jim!

[SharonAnn]

4. And remember, they are also religious zealots, most with ties to Opus Dei. "Sharia Law" anyone?

[LastDemocratInSC]

9. With Opus Dei involved I call it Maria Law, instead.

No practical difference between the two, however.

[Zilli]

21. Add sadistic to that list

These radical jurists are at war with modern life and thought and, conceivably, experience satisfaction and pleasure in tearing down rights.

[wnylib]

5. And 2 of them are sexual predators.

[SergeStorms]

6. And at least one an alcoholic.

Who knows what the other five's drugs of choice are?

[moniss]

7. This is the

guest editorial that should run in the NYT. But the editorial board would never allow it.

[aggiesal]

8. I always say, we are either a country of laws or a Banana Republic ...

We can't be both, they are mutually exclusive.

I think we are a Banana Republic.

[housecat]

24. Dems -laws; GOP- bananas

[Hortensis]

25. Yes, we can be both. And all nations always have been.

Either-or thinking produces statements that may seem highly principled and insightful, but both "either" and "or" are mutually exclusive of not just the other's reality, but all the imperfect realities between.

It would be awful to really believe we are a Banana Republic. You sure you want to? In an authoritarian state I'd be afraid to catch a policeman's eye, or for that matter post on political media. As for voting or trying to protect what we have from the RW extremists, why? Obviously, politics would be as corrupt and predatory as the legal system, and we'd have nothing worth protecting or to protect us.

[3Hotdogs]

10. So what'da we do about it?

[Justice matters.]

12. Apparently, nothing.

The White House said they will not nominate four (non-corrupt) judges to expand the USSC to 13, even when it takes 51 votes in the Senate for confirmation(s).

[sprinkleeninow]

14. Rationale behind this decision?

[Justice matters.]

20. In case another corrupt R POTUS gets elected (or selected) and wants to retaliate...

by nominating two other corrupt judges to expand the USSC to fifteen when holding a majority in the Senate.

I know it's speculation but it is what it is.

[inthewind21]

18. Pay attention

An vote accordingly.

[Lunabell]

11. They are absolutely NOT clueless.

They don't care as long as they get their agenda done.

[LT Barclay]

13. Well at least someone said corrupt. The first step is to acknowledge the problem.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

15. The Subversive 6 were corruptly installed and corruptly rule.

[Buckeyeblue]

16. Lifetime appointments run counter to democracy

I would like to understand from the writers of the constitution why they would have set up a branch of the government that does not have any oversight by the people.

I'm not suggesting that we directly elect SC justices but I don't think they should make it through 1 senate confirmation and then get to serve for life.

I think they should have a 10 year term at which point they can be reconfirmed for an additional 10 years or replaced. After two 10 year terms they must be replaced. I would really be open to limiting the term to a single 10 years but I think that could cause a lot of backlog in the federal courts as a whole.

[Buns_of_Fire]

17. Supposedly, that would insulate them from day-to-day politics.

But as usual, the law of unintended consequences kicked in and left no way to easily remove an individual who was corrupt from the git-go. Especially when the individuals who would be contemplating the removal of the justice are every bit as corrupt.

The founders assumed that the cream would rise to the top. They forgot that the really big chunks in a septic tank also rise to the top.

[inthewind21]

19. Becasue the founders

Couldn't imagine the citizens would allow the court to become what it is.

[roamer65]

22. IMO...we can start ignoring rulings from this court.

States like CA, NY, WA, OR, MN, MI, IL, etc, etc…

We already ignore federal law on MJ. We can do it with SCOTUS rulings.

[world wide wally]

23. The very idea of lifetime appointments is anti-American and anti democracy.

[Martin68]

26. "Corrupt and Clueless" Yup, that's what happens when the Federalist Society

picks nominees and the American Bar Association ratings are ignored.

[samsingh]

27. they are not clueless, they are dangerous and they are out to destroy America as we know it.