I’m guessing it’s easier to keep the promise when you’re a really dedicated partisan hack! Donors are making sure to choose nominees who WANT to abbreviate the rights of the 99%. The money is just gravy.
Modern Republican Supreme Court nominees are all but grown in a lab to ensure complete and utter allegiance to conservative priorities. From their first days of law school they’re vetted through the Federalist Society. Sufficiently promising candidates are funneled into clerkships for conservative judges. They serve in staff positions in the Department of Justice of Republican administrations. They’re appointed to lower courts where their record is meticulously scrutinized for adherence to conservative positions. Only after decades of proving their allegiances are they considered for a Supreme Court appointment.
That’s why these guys don’t just flip the bird at the Republican establishment once they’re on the court. They are the Republican establishment.
Yeah, I don’t think there is much cash flowing (at least directly) to the justices. They make enough to be quite comfortable, are in demand for banquets and such where people suck up to them, and they are generally regarded as movers and shakers.
For the most part, they believe in the crap they are shoveling. Now, not so much originalism/textualism - they’ve shown a willingness to abandon that if it stands in the way of their desired social/economic outcome.
It’s all just a thin veneer so people won’t notice that it’s really about trying to justify selfishness.
Yes, my impression of the supreme court is that they are necessarily partisan but they are ideologues who have internalized Wilhoit’s notion that
There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect
with corporations being their most favored in group.
Sometimes it goes to the spouse.
Another of the functions of the Federalist Society is to keep the monkeysphere of Supreme Court justices occupied with movement conservatives, so that they don’t “go native” once in Washington and socialize with wrong-thinking people. Rubbing elbows with other conservatives at society events, speeches, etc. means being able to keep them on the straight and narrow, since they risk social ostracism if they skew too far from the movement party line.
This is similar to the change that Newt Gingrich wrought in Congress via the Contract on America, which keeps Senators and Representatives away from Washington (and each other) and thus less able to work with one another on small matters to build trust so as to accomplish larger matters. Instead, they’re doing events with donors to build campaign coffers and doing the occasional town hall to hear from their nuttiest, most motivated constituents.
The monkeysphere is a powerful force for conformity. The conservative movement has learned how to use it.
Internet and irony live together in perfect harmony…
Side by side on my PC keyboard, oh Lord, why don’t we?
Don’t give me that earworm! Aaaargh!
Thomas quotes from the article:
“We have lost the capacity” as leaders “to not allow others to manipulate our institutions when we don’t get the outcomes that we like,” he said.
“I think we should be careful destroying our institutions because they don’t give us what we want when we want it,” he said. “I think we should be really, really careful.”
You’re a bit late on that one, Uncle Thom.
I’m with Alessan: The whole purpose of justices being appointed for life, and virtually un-impeachable unless they do something extreme, and never needing to face elections, is precisely so they can give the middle finger to anyone who tries to coerce or sway them a certain way. That’s the whole point of the design - so they can be free of influence, in theory, and rule however they truly see fit.
So this whininess really is a bit odd.
They can still be touched by greed and fear.
The problem with this theory is it presumes the people making up the Supreme Court will have the same attitudes towards material advancement as, well, an 18th-century landed aristocrat of English descent (even one rebelling against London).
When much of your governmental framework depends upon everyone acting like proper English gentlemen, where one wouldn’t be caught dead violating a social custom, this creates a massive imbalance if a group of people decide to act differently.
The theory of the Supreme Court is nice. The reality is that they are all human and they all live in a world where their price, no matter how high, can be met with ease by parties also disinterested in acting like 18th-century English gentlemen.
Let me fix that for you.
Modern Republican Supreme Court nominees are all but grown in a lab to ensure complete and utter allegiance to radically reactionary priorities. From their first days of law school they’re vetted through the Federalist Society. Sufficiently promising candidates are funneled into clerkships for radically reactionary judges. They serve in staff positions in the Department of Justice of Republican administrations. They’re appointed to lower courts where their record is meticulously scrutinized for adherence to radically reactionary positions. Only after decades of proving their allegiances are they considered for a Supreme Court appointment.
The word conservative has a definition. Please respect it.
I tend to lump the Federalist Society with The Heritage Foundation, at least in terms of being grim petri dishes for unhatching the devolution of the conservative movement. Some would consider their direction their strength, their directive; others would contend that they’re fomentng, yes, the aforementioned radically reactionary positions that will increasingly toxify clerkships and lower courts.
Thank you for quoting my entire post and changing one word lest readers confuse my use of the word “conservative” with the positions of 19th century British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. For the record, and to my knowledge, modern conservative jurisprudence takes no position on the Corn Laws.
Ummm, you’re welcome?
Racial based insults like this are not appropriate for this board. Please avoid it in the future.
No warning issued.
Even if his name is Thomas, I definitely crossed a line here. Mea culpa.