Some say because judges in the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to be picked partly for being liberal, progressive or conservative that the court is not im..

Some say because judges in the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to be picked partly for being liberal, progressive or conservative that the court is not impartial and is corrupt. Any truth to that?
 

Torin

Active member
I think of corruption as using a political position dishonestly for personal gain. The Google definition seems to agree.

So, I would not say that SCOTUS is corrupt solely for the reason that SCOTUS Justices are selected for political reasons. That's just not predictive of SCOTUS Justices using their positions for personal gain.

SCOTUS may be corrupt for other reasons, naturally.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Some say because judges in the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to be picked partly for being liberal, progressive or conservative that the court is not impartial and is corrupt. Any truth to that?
Some of the judges were picked for their political leanings. Not all of them were, but some were. Trump's last three were specifically chosen for their conservative viewpoints, for example.

No, I don't think this makes the SCOTUS automatically "corrupt", but it sure gives the court an appearance of being politically biased.

People today assume that if you're a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative - everything you decide is biased in favor of your politics. This is simply false. I make decisions all the time that aren't influenced by my politics, and so do everyone else. Some of these decisions aren't influenced by our politics because it'd be impossible; the choice I make about what to have for supper, for example. The choice about which one of my children is telling the truth about a dispute - I could judge fairly, and without reference to political ideas/values.

Even the choice about how to judge a legal case could in theory be made without me pushing my own political agenda.

The reality is that humans can never know with certainty what motivated a particular judge to decide the way he/she did. We can guess, though - and that's all this nonsense about liberal vs conservative judges is. Nonsense. None of us knows that a judge ruled the way liberals like simply because the judge is a liberal. Or conservatives because the judge is a conservative.
 
I think of corruption as using a political position dishonestly for personal gain. The Google definition seems to agree.

So, I would not say that SCOTUS is corrupt solely for the reason that SCOTUS Justices are selected for political reasons. That's just not predictive of SCOTUS Justices using their positions for personal gain.

SCOTUS may be corrupt for other reasons, naturally.
Substitute corrupt for partial.
 
Some of the judges were picked for their political leanings. Not all of them were, but some were. Trump's last three were specifically chosen for their conservative viewpoints, for example.

No, I don't think this makes the SCOTUS automatically "corrupt", but it sure gives the court an appearance of being politically biased.

People today assume that if you're a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative - everything you decide is biased in favor of your politics. This is simply false. I make decisions all the time that aren't influenced by my politics, and so do everyone else. Some of these decisions aren't influenced by our politics because it'd be impossible; the choice I make about what to have for supper, for example. The choice about which one of my children is telling the truth about a dispute - I could judge fairly, and without reference to political ideas/values.

Even the choice about how to judge a legal case could in theory be made without me pushing my own political agenda.

The reality is that humans can never know with certainty what motivated a particular judge to decide the way he/she did. We can guess, though - and that's all this nonsense about liberal vs conservative judges is. Nonsense. None of us knows that a judge ruled the way liberals like simply because the judge is a liberal. Or conservatives because the judge is a conservative.
Substitute corrupt for partial.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Some say because judges in the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to be picked partly for being liberal, progressive or conservative that the court is not impartial and is corrupt. Any truth to that?
It is certainly not impartial, but it couldn't be. Human beings aren't impartial, so a court composed of seven of them couldn't ever be impartial.

The fact that it is not impartial does not make it corrupt, and nothing I've ever seen has indicated to me that the SCOTUS is corrupt.
 

vibise

Active member
It is certainly not impartial, but it couldn't be. Human beings aren't impartial, so a court composed of seven of them couldn't ever be impartial.

The fact that it is not impartial does not make it corrupt, and nothing I've ever seen has indicated to me that the SCOTUS is corrupt.
One thing missing from this thread is the fact that Mitch McConnell refused to do his constitutional duty and grant Merrick Garland a fair hearing after his nomination to SCOTUS. He used the bogus claim that justices should not be confirmed 8 months out from an election, but then dropped that claim to ram through Coney Barret's nomination just days before an election.

That is corruption designed to shape the court and deny Dem Presidents their right to appoint justices.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
One thing missing from this thread is the fact that Mitch McConnell refused to do his constitutional duty and grant Merrick Garland a fair hearing after his nomination to SCOTUS. He used the bogus claim that justices should not be confirmed 8 months out from an election, but then dropped that claim to ram through Coney Barret's nomination just days before an election.

That is corruption designed to shape the court and deny Dem Presidents their right to appoint justices.
Indeed, and the ones whining about unconstitutional stuff going on are also the same people who support Moscow Mitch
 
The senate has the power to delay a nomination or not. Some think some justices are chosen partly because they are liberal, progressive or conservative. I think it is about power whether in the choice of who is going to be presented to congress by the president and who the senate delays or not. Whether it is on the democratic side or the republican side, it is about power. It appears they want the power to push their agenda. It might not go their way when something goes to the Supreme Court but it appears they still try to get their judge in for that reason.
 

vibise

Active member
The senate has the power to delay a nomination or not. Some think some justices are chosen partly because they are liberal, progressive or conservative. I think it is about power whether in the choice of who is going to be presented to congress by the president and who the senate delays or not. Whether it is on the democratic side or the republican side, it is about power. It appears they want the power to push their agenda. It might not go their way when something goes to the Supreme Court but it appears they still try to get their judge in for that reason.
The Senate has the Constitutional responsibility of providing advice and consent. In the case of Garland, refused to even meet with the candidate and the Senate majority leader gave a bogus reason for the refusal, which was a refusal, not a delay. And then, when POTUS was a member of his party, somehow this bogus reason was no longer operational. In the case of the last 3 appointments, it is clear that these justices were chosen for their RW links.
 
Top