477
submitted 2 weeks ago by ZeroCool@slrpnk.net to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 2 weeks ago

The American judicial system is set up in such a way that it's largely transparent, so large scale corruption would be nearly impossible to sustain.

Lol. Have you seen our Supreme Court lately?

[-] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works -3 points 2 weeks ago

Yes? Who's on the payroll? Conservative judges ruling according to conservative doctrine isn't evidence of corruption.

Every single case that happens in the Supreme Court is documented by an army of scribes. It's all publicly accessible.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Do you honestly believe that I'm referring to their conservative beliefs? Have you been living under a rock? Google "Harlan Crow" for one.

Being publicly accessible does not preclude corruption. There is a reason that there are a few specific justices that are constantly arguing against any type of oversight.

[-] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Of course it doesn't preclude corruption, it just makes it incredibly difficult to pull off. There's no way to make it illegal for Supreme Court justices to have friends and family, is there? But when they start trying to bend the rules, they get caught very easily. Clarence Thomas is certainly suspicious but that's why there's public outrage and he's being investigated.

Indeed, FixTheCourt, an organization dedicated to greater court transparency, found that Justice Clarence Thomas had received some $4.2 million in gifts and luxury trips over the past 20 years, much of it from Republican megadonors. In contrast, FixTheCourt reported that the other eight justices, plus the eight retired or deceased justices got gifts that altogether were valued at roughly $600,000 over the same 20-year period.

So aside from Thomas, the other judges received an average of $37,500 in gifts each over the past 20 years. Not nearly enough to claim widespread corruption. The reality is that corruption is unecessary, the judges argue in a certain way because that's what they believe.

They were appointed to the Supreme Court in the first place because of their established judicial records which go back decades. There are several justices that frequently argue against government oversight because that's the kind of judges that Republican presidents have decided to appoint, because they believe in the same things. It doesn't always need to be some grand conspiracy, it's usually a much more banal form of dysfunction.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 weeks ago

Why would I put Thomas aside? He is not the only one, by the way, look into Alito.

That is 2 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices. And I do not trust any person hand-picked by the Federalist Society. At what point should we be concerned about our highest court being corrupt?

[-] imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 weeks ago

Because he's the exception that proves the rule. If he in fact is corrupt, it indicates that it's very easy to catch a corrupt justice, because they have to disclose all of their gift, income, etc.

Look into Alito? You look into Alito, bitch. Have a report on my desk first thing tomorrow morning.

this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
477 points (99.4% liked)

News

23670 readers
4881 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS