What if a case came to #scotus without any billionaire benefactor telling them how to vote? How could they possibly decide? Read the Constitution?!😄😁😀 No, seriously, those must be the cases they decline to hear.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/durbin-announces-vote-on-supreme-court-ethics-bill-00102935
@walterbays .One of the biggest surprises I had when I was in law school was finding out that the Supreme Court heard a little over 800 cases a year, and they were limited in the number of cases they could hear because of all of the cases between states, between the US and another nation and a few other instances that makes the the court of original jurisdiction. If you are interested, in learning about all the cases that the court hears, consider following SCOTUSblog.
@J_Windrow Thank you. I'll take a look. Well beyond all the partisan fighting, I'm worried what it may take to repair the court, ridding it of the rampant corruption and beginning to rebuild its reputation as a branch of government where law and principles matter, even when particular cases aren't decided as we might wish. It seems Roberts is not up to the task.
@J_Windrow Depoliticizing appointments is also needed and also very difficult. First level screening should be exclusively about qualifications with public questioning by a panel of current and retired appellate judges. Compulsory attendance by judiciary committee who may not speak. Then only well qualified judges go to judiciary for an openly partisan examination of their judicial philosophy and any partisan leanings.
@walterbays IMO SCOTUS has been going downhill for years. It's become exceptionally corrupt. IMO it's worse than the Taney Court, which was (IMO) the worst court ever.
A constitutional amendment to limit to 20 years would be good, if we could get anyone to agree.
We need a stringent involuntary code of ethics that will result in expulsion if not abided by. Another hard thing.