Thomas has attended at least two Koch donor summits, putting him in the extraordinary position of having helped a political network that has brought multiple cases before the Supreme Court.
Et tu, Ken Burns?
It’s not a secret the Koch Bros donated and supported PBS projects like those of Ken Burns.
His Vietnam documentary is amazing, but I can’t help but think of it as the thinnest of silver linings.
Aren’t pretty much all of his documentaries amazing?
I still firmly believe the problem is that these justices have lifetime appointments. I understand the logic about keeping them free from political influence, but ironically I think this has gotten to the point where some of them feel invincible and thus free to insert their political biases into their judgments without fear of repercussions.
I think a better system would be for them to serve, say, 20-year terms, after which they cannot be installed in SCOTUS again. That leaves them free of political influence in the same way the Founding Fathers intended, but shortens their stay in power, which will hopefully limit the amount of damage some of them can do and perhaps make them feel less untouchable.
Cut that to 8 year terms. That way we’ll have Justices who understand modern values.
I’d rather have a mix of modern and old values on SCOTUS. Older generations deserve representation too.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying have all 35 year olds. I’m all for 60+ judges being appointed. I’m just saying 8 year terms. Lifetime terms is a vector for corruption, i.e. bribery and blackmail.
Honestly, I don’t know for certain what the effective difference would be between 8-year terms vs. 20-year terms, but I could see how having terms that are too short might result in disruptive chaos. It takes lawsuits years to move up through the court system to reach SCOTUS. If justices had 8-year terms, that would likely mean we’re appointing at least one new justice every year. I could see that making it very difficult for lawyers, plaintiffs, etc, to make long-term legal plans with SCOTUS in mind, because you never know what the court is actually going to look like when your case finally gets there. Maybe that’s not a bad thing, maybe it is; probably has pros and cons to it. I don’t think I have the legal experience to really give an informed opinion about what length of term is best for a SCOTUS judge, but I can see there potentially being serious issues with them being too short.
That’s a lot of words for “he’s corrupt”.
Did Charles Koch and Harlan Crow get in a fight over who gets to control Clarence?
“Now, looka heyuh! Ah paid for that boy fayuh and squayuh!”
Secretly?
Okay, he can gtfo any day now please. Clearly not an unbiased person.
Shhh… Nothing to see here. We’re busy setting the coals to the feet of a Democratic senator!
I mean he wore a hoodie to work. I’m surprised anyone survived to be able to report on that cataclysmic event. Going to be decades before the country can heal from the devastation that was caused.
Taking about Bob Menendez, probably, who has been a greasy hog the entire time I’ve paid attention to politics (and just got indicted for bribery).
The article referenced: https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus
Saved you a click.Seems like intentionally hiding this sort of thing could be viewed as cognizance of guilt.
Corruption at the highest level. Senator getting pinched on bribes but only because “donor” was foreign government not approved by the State Dept. 🤡
While plebs get years for minor infractions…
