The post says that "Attempts at humor usually fall flat" but also that it's not humorless. If you've listened anytime recently, oral arguments can have semi-formal tone. Of course there's requisite formality of procedure, and I can't even recall an occasion when that has lapsed, but because these are actual discussions, there is a good amount of rather straightforward talk. Justices regularly construct absurd scenarios to test the limits of arguments, and some of the following argumentation can be pretty funny. It's worth a listening from time to time.
Analysis by Fix the Court identified 546 gifts valued at over $4.7 million given to 18 current and former justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the primary recipient.
Judicial reform bills have tried to address the issue, but these bills have very little chance of success in the current political environment.
They're probably referring to the millions of dollars of gifts Clarence Thomas received over the years, often just prior to ruling in the gift giver's favor.
And you have only one party to blame for this, it also predates all the Trump unhinged cases/decisons and even his first mandate.
Republicans simply suceeded in their plan to take over the federal judiciary branch from the top, in great part with the help of the Federalist Society.
The only answer if Democrats ever take power back is to pack the court now, no amount of unwritten rules following and norms respecting can work against people who abuse the system and packed the court themselves (by unjustifiably blocking candidates nominations which would have balanced the court, for years)
All that precise language when addressing usually some old guy in black robes (I intentionally put it that way, I'm not in front of the court) reminds me a lot of Japanese formality rules.
It drove me crazy to try to remember and assess not just how to say it in Japanese, but how to change the subject to be honorific, or extra honorific. Or change my own pronoun to ore, boku, watashi, watakushi depending on whether I wanted to try to be intimate or not. Or, remember that damn conjugation rules around converting the sentence to passive, or whatever.
Those rules made me constantly insecure when talking to peers, even when they weren't technically peers. When I did aikido, I was starting as a 1st year in aikido, though I was a 3rd year in college. So, many of my "senpais" were younger but I had to address them a certain way, even when we weren't in the dojo.
All these rules from this article seem like they are designed to give the judges power over the people addressing the court. That seems really strange when I think about it that way. Why do we need to lionize the people, can't their brilliant legal minds carry the full weight of the arguments and decisions?
It is about respect for the institution, regardless of the man. It is why judges are addressed as "your honor" or "judge" as it is to their integrity and their office we plead not to them as individuals.
I'd prefer SCOTUS to blog about when it is appropriate for a justice to fly treason flags supporting insurrectionists or decline to recuse themselves from cases involving their insurrectionist family members.
A growing portion of the population couldn't care less about what's "appropriate" at SCOTUS anymore.
When you basically let your institution be co-opted as a part of a man's effort to run the federal government as a private company intended exclusively for the benefit of himself and his associates, you can expect jokes.
The US Supreme Court currently is a joke itself with their Kavanaugh stops laws and other agenda driven politics and mostly in the way the cowardly justices aren’t even providing reasoning or guidance on any of their brain dead rulings to lower courts.
The current Supreme Court has no regard for law and justice for the people of the USA. What a joke.
Hey, don’t say that! SCOTUS said it’s bad for the country for them to be perceived as partisan. According to them, the correct fix is to stop describing their partisan actions as partisan.
The post says that "Attempts at humor usually fall flat" but also that it's not humorless. If you've listened anytime recently, oral arguments can have semi-formal tone. Of course there's requisite formality of procedure, and I can't even recall an occasion when that has lapsed, but because these are actual discussions, there is a good amount of rather straightforward talk. Justices regularly construct absurd scenarios to test the limits of arguments, and some of the following argumentation can be pretty funny. It's worth a listening from time to time.
The Supreme Court is the joke… it has lost all credibility with partisan inconsistency and overt bribery.
I'm unfamiliar with this, can you elaborate?
Analysis by Fix the Court identified 546 gifts valued at over $4.7 million given to 18 current and former justices, with Justice Clarence Thomas as the primary recipient.
Judicial reform bills have tried to address the issue, but these bills have very little chance of success in the current political environment.
From 2024:
https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hol...
They're probably referring to the millions of dollars of gifts Clarence Thomas received over the years, often just prior to ruling in the gift giver's favor.
Here's the source I'm sure you'll want: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...
It's a big surprising thing to hear about for the first time! Glad to help you become familiar.
What bribery?
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-money-com...
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/06/supreme-court-justices-milli...
Etc etc, and that's just one of them, and that's just what's public.
https://playbill.com/article/watch-supreme-court-justice-ket...
[dead]
And you have only one party to blame for this, it also predates all the Trump unhinged cases/decisons and even his first mandate.
Republicans simply suceeded in their plan to take over the federal judiciary branch from the top, in great part with the help of the Federalist Society.
The only answer if Democrats ever take power back is to pack the court now, no amount of unwritten rules following and norms respecting can work against people who abuse the system and packed the court themselves (by unjustifiably blocking candidates nominations which would have balanced the court, for years)
Democrats, while better than republicans in this regard, are also to blame. It is not one or the other.
All that precise language when addressing usually some old guy in black robes (I intentionally put it that way, I'm not in front of the court) reminds me a lot of Japanese formality rules.
It drove me crazy to try to remember and assess not just how to say it in Japanese, but how to change the subject to be honorific, or extra honorific. Or change my own pronoun to ore, boku, watashi, watakushi depending on whether I wanted to try to be intimate or not. Or, remember that damn conjugation rules around converting the sentence to passive, or whatever.
Those rules made me constantly insecure when talking to peers, even when they weren't technically peers. When I did aikido, I was starting as a 1st year in aikido, though I was a 3rd year in college. So, many of my "senpais" were younger but I had to address them a certain way, even when we weren't in the dojo.
All these rules from this article seem like they are designed to give the judges power over the people addressing the court. That seems really strange when I think about it that way. Why do we need to lionize the people, can't their brilliant legal minds carry the full weight of the arguments and decisions?
It is about respect for the institution, regardless of the man. It is why judges are addressed as "your honor" or "judge" as it is to their integrity and their office we plead not to them as individuals.
It is because they have power, and want to be addressed this way. And you are likely to lose your case if you don't follow their rules.
1 reply →
In modern politics the end justifies the means.
Are you pro abortion? The end justifies the means, because you are saving women.
Are you pro live? The end justifies the means, because you are saving babies.
As long as the playing field is good vs evil there can't be a rational discussion.
I'd prefer SCOTUS to blog about when it is appropriate for a justice to fly treason flags supporting insurrectionists or decline to recuse themselves from cases involving their insurrectionist family members.
Are all 4 existing comments here from bots? They’re basically all saying the same thing..
No, I checked, all look like old accounts run by humans. It’s telling, the common opinion, isn’t it?
I am a human. I see overlap in thought on a fresh post.
That's exactly what a bot would say!
1 reply →
A growing portion of the population couldn't care less about what's "appropriate" at SCOTUS anymore.
When you basically let your institution be co-opted as a part of a man's effort to run the federal government as a private company intended exclusively for the benefit of himself and his associates, you can expect jokes.
The US Supreme Court currently is a joke itself with their Kavanaugh stops laws and other agenda driven politics and mostly in the way the cowardly justices aren’t even providing reasoning or guidance on any of their brain dead rulings to lower courts.
The current Supreme Court has no regard for law and justice for the people of the USA. What a joke.
Hey, don’t say that! SCOTUS said it’s bad for the country for them to be perceived as partisan. According to them, the correct fix is to stop describing their partisan actions as partisan.
The Supreme court currently is itself a joke. They are bought and paid for agents of Trump.
It used to matter if you would say such things in court. It does not matter now when the court is loaded with unintelligent purchased ghouls.