Has SCOTUS been compromised?

[BobRyan]

Let’s assume, for the sake of the aluminum foil contingent, that SCOTUS met. Even if they had a lively debate, what would make anyone think that all nine would lock step simply on orders from Justice Roberts?

That is not the point. The point is that it is not a "legal" argument so say that justice cannot be done if "someone will object on the streets". That is nonsense. In fact it is "mob rule" not justice at all.

If one judge is promoting nonsense on a certain topic -- maybe they should recuse themselves from it.

And that is the same point about the report of that 2019 phone call between Roberts and Breyer.

 

[trunks2k]

Aside from the obvious issues with their not being co-located for several months, another element to not pass the sniff test is the notion that a lawyer clerking for a SCOTUS justice - arguably one of the most coveted early-career legal positions in the country would risk such a position by blabbing something like this to, of all people, a wackjob like Hal Turner.

I've been following a few lawyers on Twitter recently who have been covering all this nonsense, some of which have direct experience in the federal appellate court system if not having argued in front of SCOTUS directly. They've been pretty much spot on in everything they've talked about (including that SCOTUS would refuse to hear the TX case on a 7-2 decision with the two dissenting because they think they MUST hear the case). They've said that beside the fact that the justices haven't met in person in weeks, the most unbelievable part of the whole thing is that there was someone leaking information about the goings on in the SCOTUS. That just doesn't happen, in part, as you mentioned, working there is a prestigious job so you wouldn't want to get fired from and since it's a-political, there's no reason to intentionally leak information.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are other people besides me in my house, in the report on the internet there is someone clerking for one of the justices that is reporting that information. I don't know the details for how they are holding the meeting, but I know that at home I have closed doors during meetings where I don't want noise from someone else in the house interfering with the online meeting I am in.

I don't consider what I do "impossible" to happen.

Then why did the source claim that they met in person? Your source got caught in a lie. They may not have lied themselves, but they believed one at the very least without vetting it and passed it on. That is an all but unforgivable error in journalism. Here is a simple test. Is the article still there? If so then they are openly lying. They would have been corrected by now. If it is still up they do not care about getting caught.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the point. The point is that it is not a "legal" argument so say that justice cannot be done if "someone will object on the streets". That is nonsense. In fact it is "mob rule" not justice at all.

If one judge is promoting nonsense on a certain topic -- maybe they should recuse themselves from it

If it happened you might have a valid claim. The point is that we know it did not happen as stated in the apparently openly lying article that you posted. You got sucked in on a lie.

 

[cow451]

Summary execution is not something practice in the US military. Also neither disobeying orders nor cowardice are classed as treason under the code of military justice. Though you could get your dreamt of executions as cowardice can be a capital offense but there is still the matter of a trial.

Or just move to Iran where a poster’s ideas might fit in better? Seriously ....

 

[cow451]

There are other people besides me in my house, in the report on the internet there is someone clerking for one of the justices that is reporting that information. I don't know the details for how they are holding the meeting, but I know that at home I have closed doors during meetings where I don't want noise from someone else in the house interfering with the online meeting I am in.

I don't consider what I do "impossible" to happen.

But do buy the OP?

 

[whatbogsends]

That is not the point. The point is that it is not a "legal" argument so say that justice cannot be done if "someone will object on the streets". That is nonsense. In fact it is "mob rule" not justice at all.

If one judge is promoting nonsense on a certain topic -- maybe they should recuse themselves from it.

And that is the same point about the report of that 2019 phone call between Roberts and Breyer.

The point of this thread appears to be you promoting a clear falsehood.

The claim in the OP has been debunked. Attempting to shift it to hypothetic-land and then go from there is simply trying to keep this falsehood going because it might have happened, with absolutely no evidence to support that it did.

 

[cow451]

That is not the point. The point is that it is not a "legal" argument so say that justice cannot be done if "someone will object on the streets". That is nonsense. In fact it is "mob rule" not justice at all.

If one judge is promoting nonsense on a certain topic -- maybe they should recuse themselves from it.

And that is the same point about the report of that 2019 phone call between Roberts and Breyer.

The point is that SGOTI can throw any pro Trump crap online and a bunch of folks will believe it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That is not the point. The point is that it is not a "legal" argument so say that justice cannot be done if "someone will object on the streets". That is nonsense. In fact it is "mob rule" not justice at all.

Well, fortunately your source has been soundly debunked by facts, so your nightmare scenario didn't happen.

If one judge is promoting nonsense on a certain topic -- maybe they should recuse themselves from it.

And if your "source" is promoting nonsense, are you going to continue trusting it without question?

And that is the same point about the report of that 2019 phone call between Roberts and Breyer.

Not even giving a moment's thought to vetting your sources?

 

[Sparagmos]

In combat if a subordinate refuses to obey a lawful order he or she can and should be shot dead for treason

. Who told you that? Perhaps someone who follows Q? Sounds similar to the things I’m hearing from them. Military tribunals, public executions, martial (“marshall”) law...

 

[SimplyMe]

That is not the point. The point is that it is not a "legal" argument so say that justice cannot be done if "someone will object on the streets". That is nonsense. In fact it is "mob rule" not justice at all.

If one judge is promoting nonsense on a certain topic -- maybe they should recuse themselves from it.

And that is the same point about the report of that 2019 phone call between Roberts and Breyer.

Okay, fine. But the point remains, Roberts cannot force the vote to go a certain way, no matter how much he yells, kicks and screams. In fact, we saw it in this vote -- it was 7-2, so I'm not sure why two justices could vote the other way but not any of the others.

Instead, it was predicted that the case would fail on standing. Let's try this as an analogy -- you live next door to me and prior to election day I see that you have an envelope marked ballot. I ask you about it and say that you are voting by mail. I then go to the polls and vote on Election Day. My guy ends up not winning, but I also find out that you voted for that guy I don't like. So, since I am upset that you voted by mail, I sue to get your ballot tossed out because you voted by mail. Should you be forced to defend your vote in court, just because you voted in a different manner than I did? Do I have any right to question how you voted, including the manner in which you voted.

The answer is "no," I don't have that right -- your right to vote is yours and yours alone, so long as you followed the law. This is exactly what happened with the Texas case, except that in the case of Texas it was a state suing other states, rather than one person suing another. Essentially, Texas didn't like that other states allowed their citizens to vote by mail and so filed a case to throw out the votes in those states -- so that the Republican legislatures of their states would change the outcome of the vote to Trump.

What the Supreme Court rightly decided, which had been predicted by most legal experts (and me, not that I'm any type of legal expert), is that Texas doesn't get to say how Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin hold their vote. Those states get to determine the voting rules in their states, just as Texas can make the rules in Texas; Texas doesn't get to complain that other states "aren't doing it right." This is why the case was dismissed due to "standing."

 

[Bobber]

Once again: The SCOTUS has not met together in person for some time now due to the Covid19 pandemic. It was impossible for them to be together behind closed doors because they have not been together closed doors or not.

How do you KNOW for a fact they haven't met? What if the official line is different then what they actually did? Bottom line is you're assuming the person who said they heard this is lying. Maybe he or she is but I see no absolute proof demonstrated the official line is always true. Maybe you're showing mere bias in claiming it's impossible?

 

[Nithavela]

Of course they have been compromised, otherwise they'd toe the line of dear leader. It's time for a pur.. oh wait, SCOTUS judges are nomated for life and can't be fired on a whim. Whoops!

 

[SimplyMe]

How do you KNOW for a fact they haven't met? What if the official line is different then what they actually did? Bottom line is you're assuming the person who said they heard this is lying. Maybe he or she is but I see no absolute proof demonstrated the official line is always true. Maybe you're showing mere bias in claiming it's impossible?

But, again, how does this make any difference? The "Chief Justice" cannot force people to vote a certain way -- he has no power to punish other justices who don't vote they way he wants. If he could, I don't think we'd be worried about liberal or conservative majorities on the Supreme Court, just that the Chief Justice leans the right way.

Even in this vote, it ended 7-2 -- so somehow he could force other justices to vote a certain way but it didn't end up 9-0? For anyone with even basic knowledge of the Supreme Court, this is ludicrous. Even if a Chief Justice gets mad, yells and screams, it isn't going to prevent every justice from voting they way they believe is correct.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How do you KNOW for a fact they haven't met? What if the official line is different then what they actually did? Bottom line is you're assuming the person who said they heard this is lying. Maybe he or she is but I see no absolute proof demonstrated the official line is always true. Maybe you're showing mere bias in claiming it's impossible?

By using logic and reason. Oops, that leaves out quite a few people here. There is not much of a need and quite a bit of a risk to travel and meet in person right now. And once a hole is found in your argument, such as the publicly available knowledge that the Supreme Court is not meeting in person that puts the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise.

Attempting to shift the burden of proof is an admission that one is wrong. Thank you for admitting that you are wrong.

 

[Bobber]

Even if a Chief Justice gets mad, yells and screams, it isn't going to prevent every justice from voting they way they believe is correct.

That's not the point. The point is if the allegation is true it shows a justice would set aside what would be he rights of all States involved and there were many wanting their case heard. And he doesn't maybe because of the fear of riots? Then wouldn't that mean if you want something done you've got to all act like a bunch of animals? Let me add this I'm not even saying I believe a person heard this I believe innocent until proven guilty but if he did say it I think it'd be wrong. A legal system can't work that way.

 

[Nithavela]

I can certainly understand our govmts' concerns about a hostile reaction if justice holds true and President Trump continues on into his rightful 2nd term. Look at what the extremists have done for the past 4 yrs against against a sitting President of the US! It is, or at least was, unfathomable before all of the sabotages, slander, fake news, and general open hostilities, including those riots which were a faction of the liberal agenda. But now, I am ashamed to mention what the citizenry of our great nation are now capable and willing to do. Marshall Law has its place. In combat if a subordinate refuses to obey a lawful order he or she can and should be shot dead for treason as others follow if they get away with it and the mission (possibly saving thousands of lives or even ending the war) has a very high risk of or will fail.

But our govmnt should never balk at such but maintain governing control, however, and do what is right and just. Apparently, courage and righteousness is a rare characteristic of our govmnt officials these days.

*martial law

Also, are you sure that refusing an order in combat is grounds for summary execution? When has the US army become the imperial guard?

 

[Nithavela]

How do you KNOW for a fact they haven't met? What if the official line is different then what they actually did? Bottom line is you're assuming the person who said they heard this is lying. Maybe he or she is but I see no absolute proof demonstrated the official line is always true. Maybe you're showing mere bias in claiming it's impossible?

Now you're off into full blown conspiracy theory territory.

 

[Bobber]

And once a hole is found in your argument, such as the publicly available knowledge that the Supreme Court is not meeting in person that puts the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise.

Well the person who stated this has alleged this took place. Sometimes if a story takes wings other people come forward to substantiate that maybe they did meet. Or maybe you're correct they didn't meet at all. When I hear a report like this I don't consider it as proof or that it can be substantiated but consider it as maybe interesting. I don't take the presumptuous position however that it's absolutely impossible that they didn't come together. As for me I don't accuse Roberts of having said this BUT if he did I think it'd be wrong.

 

[cow451]

How do you KNOW for a fact they haven't met? What if the official line is different then what they actually did? Bottom line is you're assuming the person who said they heard this is lying. Maybe he or she is but I see no absolute proof demonstrated the official line is always true. Maybe you're showing mere bias in claiming it's impossible?

Extraordinary claims require more than a tweet from SGOTI.