Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.

Not loving this new fraud based economy.

The desire to stay informed is directly at odds with the need to not be constantly enraged.

These days, even the boring Republicans are nuts.

At some point, the ability to learn is a factor of character, not IQ.

One way or another, he’s a liar.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

I would try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Republicans cannot even be trusted with their own money.

The next time the wall street journal editorial board speaks the truth will be the first.

Live so that if you miss a day of work people aren’t hoping you’re dead.

Museums are not America’s attic for its racist shit.

Disagreements are healthy; personal attacks are not.

Never entrust democracy to any process that requires republicans to act in good faith.

Michigan is a great lesson for Dems everywhere: when you have power…use it!

Innocent people do not delay justice.

There are some who say that there are too many strawmen arguments on this blog.

Our job is not to persuade republicans but to defeat them.

“Loving your country does not mean lying about its history.”

Jack be nimble, jack be quick, hurry up and indict this prick.

We will not go quietly into the night; we will not vanish without a fight.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Celebrate the fucking wins.

My right to basic bodily autonomy is not on the table. that’s the new deal.

You are here: Home / Politics / Activist Judges! / Open Thread: Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS

Open Thread: Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS

by | 52 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS - STOCKPILE

(Clay Jones via GoComics.com)

 
The Supreme Court (Republican) of the United States. Justice Thomas rightly earns the most media opprobrium, but the Scandalous Six are all a disgrace to their (stolen) robes.

Words, words, words. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D – RI) is not impressed:


Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS - STOCKPILE 3


Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS - STOCKPILE 4


Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS - STOCKPILE 6


Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS - STOCKPILE 7


Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS - STOCKPILE 5


Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS - STOCKPILE 8

Chief ‘Just Us’ Roberts is no doubt weeping into his pillow, but he doesn’t care enough about his L*E*G*A*C*Y to rein in his fellow grifters, so… {shrug emoji}

Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS - STOCKPILE 1

(Mike Luckovich via GoComics.com)

Scrutinizing SC(R)OTUS - STOCKPILE 2
(Nick Anderson via GoComics.com)

Reader Interactions

52Comments

  1. 1.

    RepubAnon

    “When he heard the word ‘ethics’, he reached for the dictionary”

    -Vogon thinking adopted by the Supreme Court.

  2. 2.

    karen marie

    I would love to have seen what Sheldon Whitehouse said but the images within his tweets are not viewable without going to twitter – not something I’m going to do.

  5. 5.

    Anne Laurie

    @karen marie: I would love to have seen what Sheldon Whitehouse said but the images within his tweets are not viewable without going to twitter – not something I’m going to do.

    That’s why I included screen shots of all those images — do those not appear for you?

  7. 7.

    Wapiti

    The Supreme Court Justices should have an absolute requirement to report any outside gift or income over a nominal amount. ($50? Whatever the rest of the Federal Government is bound to.)

    The Justices should have an absolute duty to recuse when a family member or employer or close friend or their agents have matters before the court.

    If they are impartial actors, this should not cause undue difficulties.

  10. 10.

    bbleh

    To my mind it boils down to (1) Republicans (duh) and (2) paralyzed political branches.  Absent something to hold the naturally corrupt in check, they’ll do their thing and react indignantly if anyone questions it.

    For all the more or less valid criticism of the Carters, we seem to have fallen rather far since then …

  12. 12.

    Yutsano

    Yep. I can’t accept anything over $10 or anything that might cause me to not act in the best interest of the government. My standards are higher than theirs and that’s disgusting. I’m ashamed to have to be even in the same government as them.

  13. 13.

    Jay

    @Wapiti:

    The Supreme Court Justices shouldshall have an absolute requirement to report any outside gift or income over a nominal amount. ($50? Whatever the rest of the Federal Government is bound to.)

    The Justices shouldshall have an absolute duty to recuse when a family member or employer or close friend or their agents have matters before the court.

    If they are impartial actors, this shouldwill not cause undue difficulties.

    should is suggestive. shall is directive.

  19. 19.

    Jay

    @Baud:

    You could wear a kilt, full formal with a sporran, (purse) or just a utility kilt, (they have pockets)

    underwear is optional, but suggested.

  24. 24.

    Mike in NC

    It wasn’t too long ago that the media showed the Supreme Court building surrounded by a tall fence and with snipers on the roof. Totally normal!

  26. 26.

    Geminid

    I heard some not-so-good Argentina news on WTOP news: Mr. Millei, a flaky right wing populist, won Argentina’s Presidential election. Millei beat a candidate from the current ruling party, mainly because of a poor economy.

    But, on the good news side, reporting is that Armenia and Azerbaijan are moving closer to a peace treaty that would finally end their 30 year, on-and-off war.

  32. 32.

    Anne Laurie

    @Jay: If you’re not wearing a sporran, take my word: Underwear is *not* optional.

    (Proper utility kilts, IIRC, have a little strap inside, running back-to-front, to prevent the ‘inadvertent flashing’ problem.)

  33. 33.

    TriassicSands

    @Wapiti: The Supreme Court Justices should have an absolute requirement to report any outside gift or income over a nominal amount. ($50?…

    The flaw in that formulation is that Clarence would simply arrange N-thousand $50.00 gifts. The problem with trying to come up with a workable ethics code for completely unethical people is that there is almost always a workaround. There need to be hard and fast rules, absolute limits, and specific time frames. It is hard — impossible? — to cover or anticipate every eventuality, every dodge, every excuse, etc. when you are dealing with fundamentally dishonest and corrupt people. Both Thomas and Alito reflect the elitism of America’s leaders in the period when they formed the government. In Thomas’ case it’s a more than a little laughable and ironic, because not only would he not have been a member of the elite during that period, he would have had a very good chance of being a slave. This is a man who picks and chooses selectively anything and everything  that is to his benefit. The rest? Ignored.

     

     

  34. 34.

    Geminid

    @Dan B: I don’t know if you mess with Twitter, but there is an account titled “Populism Updates” that has provided some good reporting on Mr. Millei, Argentina’s next President. I expect she’ll recap it tonight. I don’t know if she’s on other social media sites.

    This account specializes in foreign election news. The reporting is serious, but the reporter’s twitter portrait is tongue-in-cheek. It shows her in an army jacket and a rakish beret, with a bandolier full of carrots.

  35. 35.

    TriassicSands

    George Santos channeling Clarence Thomas or Sammy “Da Pope” Alito.

    “How dare you impugn my integrity!”

  36. 36.

    H.E.Wolf

    @Anne Laurie: ​@Jay: If you’re not wearing a sporran, take my word: Underwear is *not* optional.

     I can still hear the Glaswegian tones, complete with thoroughly rolled “r”, from one of the older women in the Royal Scottish Country Dance Society, as she admonished one of the be-kilted men who’d propped one foot on the seat of a chair while standing around chatting: “It’s not a pretty sight, Murray.”

  38. 38.

    H.E.Wolf

    @TriassicSands: ​
    George Santos channeling Clarence Thomas or Sammy “Da Pope” Alito.
    “How dare you impugn my integrity!”

     In contrast to the two Justices, complaining about ethics rules of any kind: “How dare you integ’ my impunity!”

  39. 39.

    BellyCat

    Say what you want about the “progressive three” but until they sign onto a full ethics code or co-sign a dissenting opinion, they are little better than the rest and complicit in this shit

    ETA: Judicial Omertà. Plain and simple.

  43. 43.

    Jay

    Get all the kilt/penis jokes, but having worn kilts many times, the key reason for underwear is “The Highland Charge”, (running “free” ain’t free),

    the second reason is sharts,….

  44. 44.

    lgerard

    The Supremes already have their own police corps,currently 180 strong.  Despite this they are also spending millions on Federal Marshals to supplement their security.  Perhaps some of these can be tasked with enforcing ethics.

     

    Just kidding

  45. 45.

    Kay

    Hired on merit!

    Linda Yaccarino, the CEO of X, formerly Twitter, has turned the service’s Hail Mary bet on an imagined $100 million political advertising business over to someone she trusts: her son Matt Madrazo.
    In recent weeks, Madrazo, who previously headed ad sales at the non-political, creator-focused media firm Studio71, has been privately introducing himself to influential figures in the political ad world in Washington, D.C. He’s part of what’s essentially a two-man operation to restart X’s political advertising business with the goal of capitalizing on the massive amounts of money that campaigns are about to spend during the 2024 elections.
    According to three people with knowledge of the situation, Madrazo has been tasked with outreach to Republican digital advertising firms and spenders. Jonathan Phelps, a Pandora and Univision veteran who also joined X in recent months, is handling the platform’s (far less promising) outreach to Democrats. Working occasionally out of Tesla’s D.C. offices, the duo are hoping to resuscitate a line of cash at a moment when the company is desperate for new revenue

  46. 46.

    TriassicSands

    @lgerard: Perhaps some of these can be tasked with enforcing ethics.

    When I read those words, I thought, “You’ve got to be kidding.” And you were.

  47. 47.

    Mai Naem mobile

    Mitch the Bitch McConnell can go fuck himself. This is his court. I do so hope the court rules for some anti environmental legislation that directly affects  something he or his extended family own. Like having some fracking   right next to a summer home they enjoy.

  48. 48.

    StringOnAStick

    @Geminid: I talked to regular Argentineans when we were there 4 years ago.  To a person (all young) they were completely cynical about politics and politicians and pretty much checked out on any of that.  Cynicism is how the right wins, because too many never see their lives improve no matter who is office.  It’s a risk we’ve got here too, but my impression in Argentina was that it’s much worse than here, at least so far.

  49. 49.

    wjca

    @Baud: I would totally buy you a $9 RV.

    What utter nonsense!  I, on the other hand, would sell you an RV for $9.  Less than what I paid for it, of course.  But everybody knows that the value of a vehicle craters the moment you drive it off the lot.  Plus, not a gift at all. (Smiles smugly.)

  50. 50.

    wjca

    @BellyCat: Say what you want about the “progressive three” but until they sign onto a full ethics code or co-sign a dissenting opinion, they are little better than the rest and complicit in this shit.

    Has it occurred to you that the alternative might well have been no Scotus ethics code at all?  Once one exists, getting changes to move it towards sensible ethics is likely to be notably easier than getting the first version adopted.

Comments are closed.