I Have Tried Cases Before the Supreme Court

gruntlabor said:
We once voted a judge out of office. Later, in an interview, he said something like, 'My God, I was only following the law!'
The important thing was that we made a statement. Maybe he ought to have been respectful of public perception, because he is gone, and they do say the public sentiment is always right.
Click to expand...
i would not like to be tried based upon public sentiment. But if others think it’s OK, feel free to request such a trial if you are accused of a serious crime. Good luck with that.
 

gruntlabor said:
We once voted a judge out of office. Later, in an interview, he said something like, 'My God, I was only following the law!'
The important thing was that we made a statement. Maybe he ought to have been respectful of public perception, because he is gone, and they do say the public sentiment is always right.
Click to expand...
While public sentiment is of course important , we can't expect a judge to circumvent the law. If I follow correctly what you are saying, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

If following the law proves to be just wrong ..... Then the law needs to be changed. By proper means,

How can people follow anyone's perception , when we almost never know what it is. See below, perception as per google.

the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
"the normal limits to human perception"
  • the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
    "the perception of pain"

    Similar:
    discernment


    appreciation


    recognition


    realization


    cognizanc
 

gruntlabor said:
It was legal and aboveboard. You have extrapolated this beyond any truth or accuracy.
Click to expand...
Hopefully, most of us can read and understand the law and act accordingly. How does one read and understand “public perception” ? I don’t know. Who even decides what public perception is? And what if it changes between the Time a person behaves in a certain way and is brought to trial. Will we need a new ex-post-facto law to handle that problem. Or will ex-post-percepto be enough?
 
rgp said:
While public sentiment is of course important , we can't expect a judge to circumvent the law. If I follow correctly what you are saying, he was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

If following the law proves to be just wrong ..... Then the law needs to be changed. By proper means,

How can people follow anyone's perception , when we almost never know what it is. See below, perception as per google.

the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
"the normal limits to human perception"
  • the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses.
    "the perception of pain"

    Similar:
    discernment


    appreciation


    recognition


    realization


    cognizanc
Click to expand...

1. No-one wished or expected him to circumvent the law of course! I think you know that.
2. A judge enjoys a degree of latitude in his sentencing. In this case he was in the habit of giving the lightest possible sentences to repeat child molesters and other violent criminals, casting a sympathetic light upon their crimes, airing his political opinions from the bench.
3. Public perception, public sentiment equals public opinion. I meant the phrasing in that sense. Public opinion is easily learned by government.
4. One proper way to change the law is by way of the voting booth.
 
Brookswood said:
Hopefully, most of us can read and understand the law and act accordingly. How does one read and understand “public perception” ? I don’t know. Who even decides what public perception is? And what if it changes between the Time a person behaves in a certain way and is brought to trial. Will we need a new ex-post-facto law to handle that problem. Or will ex-post-percepto be enough?
Click to expand...
(sigh) Public perception equals public opinion. Something government always knows --loves to know.
 
MarkD said:
So you like and admire them. You are entitled to your opinion but I don’t share it. I’m quite sure spending personal time with Alito and Thomas wouldn’t move the needle for me. I prefer justices who do not accept gifts from wealthy donors and who demonstrate respect for settled law.
Click to expand...
You would be surprised at how many very expensive and historical items have been removed from the White House when presidents changed office. Thanks to the media, very little was ever reported, but several millions of dollars of valuable items have been removed by former presidents and first ladies from both parties.

The media has done a fantastic job at keeping a tight lip and there is a reason for that.
 
Born_To_Lose said:
You would be surprised at how many very expensive and historical items have been removed from the White House when presidents changed office. Thanks to the media, very little was ever reported, but several millions of dollars of valuable items have been removed by former presidents and first ladies from both parties.

The media has done a fantastic job at keeping a tight lip and there is a reason for that.
Click to expand...
I have heard this from FBI agents, but that doesn't make it so. Supposedly, someone took the original first painting of George Washington from the White House, which I won't mention who was blamed for doing it because I can't prove it. Washington was the only president that never lived in the White House. I toured the WH and it was very interesting to learn some of the facts that the guide pointed out. If you ever decide to go, I suggest you make an appointment.
 
911 said:
I have heard this from FBI agents, but that doesn't make it so. Supposedly, someone took the original first painting of George Washington from the White House, which I won't mention who was blamed for doing it because I can't prove it. Washington was the only president that never lived in the White House.
Click to expand...
And he and Adams were also the only two to live in the Philadelphia White House. Long torn down, but it was not far from Independence Hall. Underground excavations some years ago turned up stained glass from its windows, if I remember correctly.

911 said:
I toured the WH and it was very interesting to learn some of the facts that the guide pointed out. If you ever decide to go, I suggest you make an appointment.
Click to expand...
You have to now, arranged through your Congressman. I first toured it in 1975, Red Room, Blue room, Green room. Quite thrilling. Back when I went, tours were from 10 am to Noon. Getting in line early was a must. No appt. necessary.
 
CNN-"Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden said US Customs and Border Protection records reviewed by the committee showed Thomas and his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, flew from Hawaii to New Zealand on Crow’s jet on November 19, 2010, and then returned on the jet a week later.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/kagan-supreme-court-ethics-sacramento-conference
The flight was not listed on Thomas’ financial disclosure reports and is the most recent example of the conservative justice accepting luxury travel from Crow becoming public. Earlier examples of that travel documented by ProPublica last year – including travel on Crow’s yacht, the Michaela Rose – prompted widespread calls for ethics reform at the court.

“Neither Mr. Crow nor Justice Thomas have disclosed the full scale of the Thomas’s use of the Michaela Rose and private jets courtesy of Mr. Crow, even as the Congress continues to uncover additional international private jet travel with Mr. Crow that Justice Thomas failed to disclose on his ethics filings,” Wyden wrote in a letter to Crow’s attorney on Monday."
 
againstthegrain said:
CNN-"Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden said US Customs and Border Protection records reviewed by the committee showed Thomas and his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, flew from Hawaii to New Zealand on Crow’s jet on November 19, 2010, and then returned on the jet a week later.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/politics/kagan-supreme-court-ethics-sacramento-conference
The flight was not listed on Thomas’ financial disclosure reports and is the most recent example of the conservative justice accepting luxury travel from Crow becoming public. Earlier examples of that travel documented by ProPublica last year – including travel on Crow’s yacht, the Michaela Rose – prompted widespread calls for ethics reform at the court.

“Neither Mr. Crow nor Justice Thomas have disclosed the full scale of the Thomas’s use of the Michaela Rose and private jets courtesy of Mr. Crow, even as the Congress continues to uncover additional international private jet travel with Mr. Crow that Justice Thomas failed to disclose on his ethics filings,” Wyden wrote in a letter to Crow’s attorney on Monday."
Click to expand...
If you read the "Federal Disclosure Rules', in one part it states that any gifts of travel, lodging and food do not apply to federal judges that need to be declared, but in another part, it states that the in the personal hospitality clause that all trips by plane or other vehicle, lodging and food must be claimed.

There are loopholes for federal justices and it will take months to determine what is and what isn't legal, or that needs to be declared.

Of course, if congress decides to reach into their own houses to find out who has received unreported gifts, this could take a life time.
 
Born_To_Lose said:
If you read the "Federal Disclosure Rules', in one part it states that any gifts of travel, lodging and food do not apply to federal judges that need to be declared, but in another part, it states that the in the personal hospitality clause that all trips by plane or other vehicle, lodging and food must be claimed.

There are loopholes for federal justices and it will take months to determine what is and what isn't legal, or that needs to be declared.

Of course, if congress decides to reach into their own houses to find out who has received unreported gifts, this could take a life time.
Click to expand...
Blah, blah, blah.........defending the indefensible. Depending on "loopholes" - great strategy for a SC judge.
 
"Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose two additional trips from a billionaire patron that had not previously come to light, Senate Democrats revealed on Saturday after conducting a 20-month investigation into ethics practices at the Supreme Court."
 
Here’s an interesting fact about the recently complete session of the Supreme Court. The winningest justice on the court is Elana Kagan. Justice Kagan was on the winning side 70% of the time in the non unanimous decisions. Next up were Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Alito who were tied for second place with 62% on the winning side. Justice Gorsuch was just a shade behind with 61%.

Also, 42% of the decisions were unanimous, which is a bit lower that the previous session which was 46% unanimous. 24% of the decisions produced lop-sided decisions of 8-1, 7-2 or 7-1 (with one judge recused from the decision). IOW, 66% of the decisions were unanimous or very lop-sided.
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top