SCOTUS

[PizzaSnake]

You might want to dig into the history of Fred Koch and his sons and their efforts w other billionaires. It is very wide network pf very wealthy people trying to reshape the country to their liking rather than as it was intended to be.

mmm, the one nit with that statement is "rather than as it was intended to be".

Those Founders were pretty much mostly the "billionaires" and other elites of their day and the country was certainly constructed with the benefit of those wealthy folks in mind. At a minimum, the upper middle class, but hey, plantation owners...

But, yeah, definitely not what most of us aspire for the country to be.

Here’s some questions: why a “Bill of Rights” amended to the Constitution, and why not a simple “replacement”? Implicit incompleteness and a demonstration of correctability? Any significance to the ordination of the first ten “rights”? How about the composition? The first is pretty dense, the second pretty sparse.

[Chousnake]

Using Sam’s logic, it should be fine to accept bags of cash from the billionaire jet dude.

The billionaire jet dude is so wealthy, he couldn’t possibly spend all his dough. So it doesn’t really cost anything for him to give Sam a bag of Benjamin’s. Otherwise the cash would have gone to waste.

That's not really the point. What is the point is that Supreme Court Justices - appointed for life - need to be completely above reproach and squeaky clean. If Alito has to explain why what he did was ethical in a WSJ Op-Ed, he crossed a line. If you have to ask if what he did was ok, it's not ok. I worked for a Fortune 50 company and we had to report gifts from vendors and service providers of nominal value. If I had a meal with a vendor, I paid for it. To think that it ok to accept a private jet flight to Alaska because "the seat was empty and he was going anyway" and " I only had a few conversations with him" is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy and BS. Ethics is what you do when nobody is watching. Well, Alito got caught with his hand in the cookie jar when nobody was looking and now is defending himself on some gymnastic interpretation of SCOTUS ethics and reporting rules. Can you imagine if one of the 3 non-conservative justices accepted a free vacation from George Soros? Unreal the double standard world we live in currently.

[ggait]

Totally.

If you are a USPS mail carrier, you are not allowed to accept a gift worth more than $20.

[runrussellrun]

Totally.

If you are a USPS mail carrier, you are not allowed to accept a gift worth more than $20.

you must have just gotten off the phone with your US Congressperson.........asking for new laws

alas....your social media score would take a hit if you complained about ....ANYTHING.

at least you took tRumps fake vaccine.......

[ggait]

Sam’s excuses are just so lame.

The seat on the private jet to Alaska was empty. Would be a shame for it to go to waste.

The fishing hotel in Alaska wasn’t that nice anyway.

Um, I think you take a fishing trip to Alaska for the fishing in Alaska, right? Which I hear is pretty awesome. And pretty expensive to do.

[jhu72]

Sam’s excuses are just so lame.

The seat on the private jet to Alaska was empty. Would be a shame for it to go to waste.

The fishing hotel in Alaska wasn’t that nice anyway.

Um, I think you take a fishing trip to Alaska for the fishing in Alaska, right? Which I hear is pretty awesome. And pretty expensive to do.

... but the fish weren't running

[OCanada]

You might want to dig into the history of Fred Koch and his sons and their efforts w other billionaires. It is very wide network pf very wealthy people trying to reshape the country to their liking rather than as it was intended to be.

mmm, the one nit with that statement is "rather than as it was intended to be".

Those Founders were pretty much mostly the "billionaires" and other elites of their day and the country was certainly constructed with the benefit of those wealthy folks in mind. At a minimum, the upper middle class, but hey, plantation owners...

But, yeah, definitely not what most of us aspire for the country to be.

I believe reading the Federalist Papers and AntiFederalist Papers would cause you to modify your opinion. Liberslism, individual rights, anti clericalism were strong in their thinkong.

The 3/5 rule is one i have been appalled with as long as i can remember. The qualifier is it was necessary to creat the union. Representative government was not in the best intetests of the wealthy albeit defining eno could vote was.

It is more than teo centuries later and the wethy are still trying to recreate the country in the image they want to see

[Seacoaster(1)]

Opinion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... rt-ethics/

"Another justice, another luxury trip, all expenses paid by conservative activists with ideological or financial interests before the Supreme Court.

This time, it’s Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the venue is an Alaskan fishing lodge, and the underwriters of the junket are hedge fund tycoon Paul Singer and businessman Robin Arkley II. Both are donors to the conservative Federalist Society and were joined on the 2008 fishing trip by Federalist Society official Leonard Leo. Leo was fresh off helping Alito get confirmed two years earlier.

The entitlement. The hubris. The tone-deafness about how accepting these perks is perceived by ordinary people who believe judges are neutral umpires just calling balls and strikes.

When ProPublica reported on Clarence Thomas’s far-flung and repeated vacations with GOP megadonor Harlan Crow, the justice’s defense, if it can be called that, was that the Crows are among the Thomases’ “dearest friends” and that the acceptance of luxury travel (private jet flights, a yacht trip) was justified under the carve-out in federal ethics rules for acceptance of “personal hospitality.”

This time, in another story by ProPublica, the defense is, in part, effectively “I barely knew the guy when he offered me a spare seat on his private plane.” Heads, I travel; tails, you don’t know about it.

Of course, justices get to have friends, and spend time with them. Of course, it’s a good thing for justices to interact with lawyers, law students and the public. I don’t begrudge a bit of law-teaching in a pleasant European city. Everyone benefits — students, justices, the school.

The resort at which he stayed, where rooms ran $1,000 a night, was owned by Arkley, a conservative California businessman and financial supporter of the Federalist Society. What is Alito’s relationship with Arkley? How could it possibly be acceptable to take this kind of gift?

The private-jet connection was even more questionable. At the time of the event, Singer, a hedge fund manager and major donor to Republicans and conservative causes, was embroiled in a high-stakes legal battle with Argentina, which had defaulted on its debt. Singer’s hedge fund was trying to force the country to pay up, in full. The dispute had already made its way to the Supreme Court once, the year before, and it was entirely foreseeable that the matter would be back before the court.

And so it was, eight times, including a June 2014 decision in which the court ruled 7-1, with Alito in the majority, for Singer’s firm. It ended up making Singer’s fund $2 billion.

Should Alito have recused himself, given Singer’s generosity? Some ethics experts quoted by ProPublica say so; Alito, in his astonishing pre-buttal published in the Wall Street Journal before the ProPublica story was posted, disputes that assessment. “It was and is my judgment that these facts would not cause a reasonable and unbiased person to doubt my ability to decide the matters in question impartially,” he wrote.

But the public would not know to question Alito, because the justice didn’t deign to disclose Singer’s largesse. And his explanation for why he shouldn’t have stepped aside on his own beggars belief: “I was not aware and had no good reason to be aware that Mr. Singer had an interest in any party. … In the one case in which review was granted … Mr. Singer’s name did not appear in either the certiorari petition, the brief in opposition, or the merits briefs.”

Come on. Singer’s name was in the headline or lead paragraph of pretty much every news report about the case.

Conservatives seem to have worked themselves into a frenzy of injured outrage responding to the stories about some justices’ ethical lapses. Some reports indeed have strained to find scandal — the reactions to Neil M. Gorsuch’s real estate transaction and Jane Roberts’s headhunting income seem overblown. And some liberal critics of the court’s rightward lurch might find it convenient to seize on these lapses to augment doubts about the institution’s legitimacy.

But this is not a partisan issue. Unethical behavior is unethical no matter who commits it, and it does the institution a dangerous disservice to pretend otherwise.

The game here isn’t — at least it shouldn’t be — to figure out how much you can take in the way of freebies and keep that hidden. It should be to behave in a way that is above reproach and comply with the spirit of the ethics rules. Justices scouring the code for loopholes that seem to shield their bad behavior is not a good look.

How do you know you are in the wrong? When the ethics law clearly limits the personal hospitality exception to “food, lodging and entertainment” but you find yourself arguing that a private plane counts as a facility. (Another part of the law references “property or facilities owned by” the individual providing personal hospitality.) When you’re reduced to insisting that there wasn’t much of a benefit from flying at someone else’s expense because there just happened to be an open seat on the private jet.

The photograph at the top of the ProPublica story says it all: Alito and Singer, standing in front of a fishing boat, wearing waders and beaming as they hoist their Alaskan king salmon.

How nice for them. And how troubling for the rest of us chumps, who pay our own way and are naive enough to expect more from those who sit on the highest court in the land."

[MDlaxfan76]

You might want to dig into the history of Fred Koch and his sons and their efforts w other billionaires. It is very wide network pf very wealthy people trying to reshape the country to their liking rather than as it was intended to be.

mmm, the one nit with that statement is "rather than as it was intended to be".

Those Founders were pretty much mostly the "billionaires" and other elites of their day and the country was certainly constructed with the benefit of those wealthy folks in mind. At a minimum, the upper middle class, but hey, plantation owners...

But, yeah, definitely not what most of us aspire for the country to be.

I believe reading the Federalist Papers and AntiFederalist Papers would cause you to modify your opinion. Liberslism, individual rights, anti clericalism were strong in their thinkong.

The 3/5 rule is one i have been appalled with as long as i can remember. The qualifier is it was necessary to creat the union. Representative government was not in the best intetests of the wealthy albeit defining eno could vote was.

It is more than teo centuries later and the wethy are still trying to recreate the country in the image they want to see

I agree fully with your last sentence.

But I'm referring to more than the 3/5ths rule, which was indeed to bring on board the rich rulers of the slavery dependent states.

The revolution itself was over the economics of being a colony versus an independent nation. The major property owners and professionals here who were on the side of revolution wanted to keep a larger share of the wealth being created here. Those who held their positions because of the good graces of the crown, and were satisfied or dependent with such, tended to be royalists.

Sure, much of the philosophical justifications of what they set out to construct had to do with principles we continue to recognize today as 'worthy', in contrast to the 3/5ths rule.

But the "representative government" was specifically constructed as NOT a purely representative government with the majority of people actually in control. Not just the 3/5th rule or women, but only property owners voting. And, more importantly, a construct that ensured majorities couldn't simply take the wealth of the minority. We recognize that as important to stability, but it was definitely constructed to protect the wealthy.

Of course, this new form of government was itself "radical" relative to virtually any other form of government in history, at least for many centuries of monarchy, rule justified by and enforced by sword, God, etc.. And it was specifically proposed as a philosophical justification to break from the monarchy which had been in control. The royalists typically lost their property in the process with the revolutionists profiting from that transfer or wealth, and with a much larger share of the ongoing wealth being created in America stayed with the new ruling class. That also included the merchant class becoming rapidly more wealthy. Tradesmen profited as well by the wealth being created for their customers.

Upper middle class and uber wealthy benefited greatly.
But not the royalists, need to wash them out, lest we return to the prior monarchy.
And yet, most simply adopted the new regime and worked the system going forward, including creating as much social class friction as they could, engineering what advantages they could.

Middle class merchants and tradesmen aspired to upper middle class status and the new system was engineered to make that more possible, albeit with some pretty large social structure frictions (but less than in many other societies).

Lower class didn't have any vote, only 60% of white men did, state controlled.

But sure, the principles that were being espoused by many of the voices (and opposed by others) were indeed what we've created the 'mythology' of America around...and what we continue to hold out as aspirations for the country.

Those opposing continue as well, with all sorts of advantages baked into the early construct.

Frankly, I think that's ok, as I surely don't want mob rule.
It's the balancing that's important.

Probably why I've traditionally identified as a "conservative" in process, but a moderate-progressive in social change objectives. Move toward more inclusion with more opportunity and freedom to achieve for all, but not in such a rush that stability is lost.

[OCanada]

You might want to dig into the history of Fred Koch and his sons and their efforts w other billionaires. It is very wide network pf very wealthy people trying to reshape the country to their liking rather than as it was intended to be.

mmm, the one nit with that statement is "rather than as it was intended to be".

Those Founders were pretty much mostly the "billionaires" and other elites of their day and the country was certainly constructed with the benefit of those wealthy folks in mind. At a minimum, the upper middle class, but hey, plantation owners...

But, yeah, definitely not what most of us aspire for the country to be.

The Articles of Confederation were failing. The country needed a new foundation. If they were so entrenched in their station they coukd have remained royalists. At tge time they did what was required to create a new country which was contra what one might expect if all they were interested in was wealth enhancement. Freedom of religion and speech, free press, representative government etc. from the persoective of the times it was revolutionary. Hindsight 240 years of events later dies not negate the achievement.

They certainly did not forsee the country developing such a concentration of wealth line we have now nor that the wealth would be used to try and undercut the Constitution nor that rught wing “Christians” would work to try and create a nation religion and push aside other religions rights noor that the populace would find the press unreliable, nor that voters woukd vote against their self interest.

It was an experiment that produced the greatest nation before it began its decline.

[DMac]

RIP Lax Fidelis.
He would have loved that post, OC.

[ardilla secreta]

RIP Lax Fidelis.
He would have loved that post, OC.

[MDlaxfan76]

You might want to dig into the history of Fred Koch and his sons and their efforts w other billionaires. It is very wide network pf very wealthy people trying to reshape the country to their liking rather than as it was intended to be.

mmm, the one nit with that statement is "rather than as it was intended to be".

Those Founders were pretty much mostly the "billionaires" and other elites of their day and the country was certainly constructed with the benefit of those wealthy folks in mind. At a minimum, the upper middle class, but hey, plantation owners...

But, yeah, definitely not what most of us aspire for the country to be.

The Articles of Confederation were failing. The country needed a new foundation. If they were so entrenched in their station they coukd have remained royalists. At tge time they did what was required to create a new country which was contra what one might expect if all they were interested in was wealth enhancement. Freedom of religion and speech, free press, representative government etc. from the persoective of the times it was revolutionary. Hindsight 240 years of events later dies not negate the achievement.

They certainly did not forsee the country developing such a concentration of wealth line we have now nor that the wealth would be used to try and undercut the Constitution nor that rught wing “Christians” would work to try and create a nation religion and push aside other religions rights noor that the populace would find the press unreliable, nor that voters woukd vote against their self interest.

It was an experiment that produced the greatest nation before it began its decline.

Boy, so much to like and agree with in that post. Trust me, I do.

HOWEVER, as revolutionary as it was, as huge a step forward as it was, the construction was not of some egalitarian utopia, rather it balanced the interests of the various parties to whom it granted greater power than in a monarchy. And those interests were heavily weighted to property. Forget free-men only, and that a large portion of the population was itself considered property, and that the power constructed counted that population for power allocation purposes...the construct of the nation's rules favored the wealthy in all sorts of ways. That's simple reality.

Frankly, I think that was entirely rational and necessary, in order to achieve that new foundation.

And no, while some of the rich remained royalists, and later moved to Canada etc, those who joined the revolution understood that Britain was bleeding the colonies of their potential, and thus their potential. They saw no need to remain subservient with no actual control beyond what the monarchy granted. They saw it in their self-interest to create the new construct and the balance was definitely protective of their wealth,

In 1800, the new USA had less of a wealth gap than did Britain, but wealth nevertheless was still concentrated...and only those with property were given political power...meaning that 40% of white men had no power. But the wealth gap grew very extreme in the ensuing 100 years, indeed increasing a hundred fold (a long with the huge expansion in territory and natural resources)...apparently the wealthy Founders were correct about their own class self interest?...then the wealth gap shrank until about 1980, with a turn again toward concentration in the past 40 years. https://aeon.co/essays/history-tells-us ... -gap-leads

Was America's greatness this 100 year rise in wealth concentration until 1900? Or in the aftermath of World Wars in which other wealthy rivals destroyed each other, leaving America standing? Both?

I'm also going to balk at the implication (which you may not intend) that this governance structure was solely responsible for America's rise as a great nation. Whole lot of history and factors go missing in that presumption. However, if you mean that this "experiment" of governance was a large part, perhaps essential, part of America's rise, I'll agree wholeheartedly. And hugely influential to the positive, on net, to the world's development.

I'll also balk a bit about "decline"...I'm every bit as concerned as you are about what we've been seeing over much of the past decade (with roots earlier), but this country has gone through wave after wave of conflict and self-doubt and yet emerged on a continuing path, however jerky, toward greater and greater prosperity and freedom.

I'm not so sure we've entered into a great "decline", though certainly it's very much worth challenging the forces that threaten to drag us into such.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Court knocks down the independent state legislature theory:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 1_3f14.pdf

6-3, Robert sand Kavanaugh trying to gettgeCourtback in the mainstream? Sam and Clarence still working for their stakeholders.

[jhu72]

Court knocks down the independent state legislature theory:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 1_3f14.pdf

6-3, Robert sand Kavanaugh trying to gettgeCourtback in the mainstream? Sam and Clarence still working for their stakeholders.

... really good news. Still, sounds like just half a loaf. Kavanaugh seemed to signal comeback for the other half.

[RedFromMI]

Court knocks down the independent state legislature theory:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 1_3f14.pdf

6-3, Robert sand Kavanaugh trying to gettgeCourtback in the mainstream? Sam and Clarence still working for their stakeholders.

... really good news. Still, sounds like just half a loaf. Kavanaugh seemed to signal comeback for the other half.

Commentary I have read indicates Kav basically wants the SC to be able to jump in at a later time for ANY election to “appropriately” determine whether a state court has followed the constitution as they see it.

[MDlaxfan76]

Good news.

However, it is horrifying that 3 SCOTUS judges would vote the other way.

This should be a slam dunk 9-0 call.

The "theory" was patently bogus.

[jhu72]

Good news.

However, it is horrifying that 3 SCOTUS judges would vote the other way.

This should be a slam dunk 9-0 call.

The "theory" was patently bogus.

... nothing 2 of them do surprises me. I was hoping for better out of Gorsuch. No joy.

[MDlaxfan76]

Good news.

However, it is horrifying that 3 SCOTUS judges would vote the other way.

This should be a slam dunk 9-0 call.

The "theory" was patently bogus.

... nothing 2 of them do surprises me. I was hoping for better out of Gorsuch. No joy.

yeah, this should have been easy for him. Ugh.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Interesting case and decision today:

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-me ... -colorado/