SCOTUS Watch

[waitingtoconnect]

I think it depends on the how legacy admissions are used. 1/3 of Harvard students are legacy but its not the only factor. Also "legacy" admissions are used in all sorts of private schools beneath college level to ensure families stay together through school years

[Kraken]

In the long run, legacy admissions will become race-neutral if general admissions are. That there aren't many BIPOC legacies now doesn't mean there won't be a generation from now. I, for one, support dynastic privilege. Wait, that didn't end where I thought it would.

[Victoria Raverna]

It will be fun in 4 years when asians quickly pass white people in attendance to the schools. I'm sure they will totally be fine with being a minority.

Then they'll support affirmative action based on races for diversity.

[malchior]

Essential reading. The importance of staying angry at the Supreme Court. A court this arrogant, unethical, and casual in it's abuse of power can never be accepted in a modern democracy.

Chief Justice John Roberts ended his final opinion of the Supreme Court’s just-completed term by scolding his liberal colleagues. “It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,” Roberts wrote in response to a dissenting opinion by Justice Elena Kagan — which laid out in detail how Roberts and his fellow Republican appointees had just gone far beyond the proper role of the judiciary.

Nor was Roberts the only justice this year who intimated that the justices’ rulings are beyond criticism. In an interview published by the Wall Street Journal in April, Justice Samuel Alito complained that the justices “are being hammered daily” by critics, falsely claiming that this level of disparagement is “new during my lifetime.” He also claimed that lawyers, the very people who are most educated about the courts and most capable of explaining their shortcomings, have a special obligation to defend his Court against criticism.

One year after the Court’s GOP-appointed majority overruled Roe v. Wade, the same justices behind that decision remain emboldened, apparently eager to settle old scores, and openly disdainful of those who dare to question the wisdom of their rulings. At least two of them have accepted lavish gifts from billionaires, and are contemptuous of anyone who tells them it is wrong for powerful public servants to do so.

[Smoove_B]

...and yet the biggest "check" we have on them (as I understand it) is Congress - and they're a dysfunctional nightmare. As I've mentioned before, I am definitely on the same page as Mr. Nancy, but what is the practical, realistic endpoint for staying angry here? Motivating people to vote?

This just feels like hopium:

So, while this Supreme Court frequently exercises arbitrary authority over US policy, it drew the line against decisions that could destroy democracy in the United States altogether. And the justices also showed that they are unwilling to sign onto the MAGA movement’s more novel legal arguments. This Court holds old grudges, but it does not necessarily sign on to every new grudge held by the rightmost fringe of the judiciary.

If, and this is a big “if,” the justices hold this line — sometimes wading into policy debates where they don’t belong, but leaving democracy in place — then Democrats have real reason to hope that they can eventually regain control of the Court. And, if they hold the right grudges, they can eliminate much of the current Court’s legacy.

[Pyperkub]

In the long run, legacy admissions will become race-neutral if general admissions are. That there aren't many BIPOC legacies now doesn't mean there won't be a generation from now. I, for one, support dynastic privilege. Wait, that didn't end where I thought it would.

That is one HUGE "if" you are postulating here for the elite private schools tho. (aka, there's a reason Affirmative Action was enacted in the first place....).

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Smoove_B]

The Chief Justice has refused to voluntarily come before Congress to discuss the Supreme Court’s ethics violations.

It’s time to subpoena him.

[LordMortis]

Not a AOC slappy by any means but

[malchior]

...and yet the biggest "check" we have on them (as I understand it) is Congress - and they're a dysfunctional nightmare. As I've mentioned before, I am definitely on the same page as Mr. Nancy, but what is the practical, realistic endpoint for staying angry here? Motivating people to vote?

This just feels like hopium:

So, while this Supreme Court frequently exercises arbitrary authority over US policy, it drew the line against decisions that could destroy democracy in the United States altogether. And the justices also showed that they are unwilling to sign onto the MAGA movement’s more novel legal arguments. This Court holds old grudges, but it does not necessarily sign on to every new grudge held by the rightmost fringe of the judiciary.

If, and this is a big “if,” the justices hold this line — sometimes wading into policy debates where they don’t belong, but leaving democracy in place — then Democrats have real reason to hope that they can eventually regain control of the Court. And, if they hold the right grudges, they can eliminate much of the current Court’s legacy.

I think his main point is that like the Hulk we need to be always angry and keep pushing. But honestly I think he like a lot of authors have to inject some hopium because Americans simply won't deal with reality.

[Kurth]

I don’t think I saw anyone post about this one, but it’s an important one: The case is Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co..

A little in the law weeds, but the case deals with personal jurisdiction, specifically where you can sue a company. In order for a company (or a person, but we all know they’re the same thing) to be sued in a given court, that court has to have personal jurisdiction over the company. Generally speaking, I can’t take a trip to NYC and eat a bad slice of pizza and then file a lawsuit in Oregon suing that New York pizza joint.

Under long standing precedent (a decision from 1945, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which is Con Law 101 and has been for decades) it has been settled law that the due process clause of the Constitution allows only two types of personal jurisdiction over corporations: (1) lawsuits relating to a corporation’s activities in the state where the lawsuit is filed; and (2) lawsuits in states where the corporation is incorporated or has its principal place of business.

Not anymore says Justice Gorsuch.

SCOTUS blog sums up the Mallory case as follows:

Holding: A Pennsylvania law requiring out-of-state companies that register to do business in Pennsylvania to agree to appear in Pennsylvania courts on “any cause of action” against them comports with the due process clause under Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 27, 2023. Justice Gorsuch announced the judgment of the court, delivered the opinion of the court with respect to Parts I and III-B, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Jackson joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II, III-A, and IV, in which Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh joined.

So now, any state can pass a law requiring businesses operating in the state to register to do business there and granting courts in the state personal jurisdiction without regard to the long standing due process considerations.

So, pretty much, fuck precedent.

[Smoove_B]

So, pretty much, fuck precedent.

If nothing else, they're consistent.

[Zarathud]

I look forward to these laws being used against gun manufacturers, but messing with International Shoe is legal activism on foundational principles.

[malchior]

NY Times sheds more light on how utterly unethical and corrupt Thomas is. Does anyone want to pretend his role isn't connected to how rich people are showering him with gifts and vacations. I have to imagine others on this utterly unprincipled court are receiving the same treatment. But still TIL I learned Thomas had a "friend" who paid for his wedding reception. Specifically his assistant. Who the heck pays for their boss's wedding? He was obviously being groomed for power early as they zeroed on his utter lack of ethics. He is going to go down as one of the worst public servants in our nation's history.

Clarence Thomas secured his seat on the Supreme Court, a narrow victory after a bruising confirmation fight that left him isolated and disillusioned.

Within months, the new justice enjoyed a far-warmer acceptance to a second exclusive club: the Horatio Alger Association of Distinguished Americans, named for the Gilded Age author whose rags-to-riches novels represented an aspirational version of Justice Thomas’s own bootstraps origin story.

If Justice Thomas’s life had unfolded as he had envisioned, his Horatio Alger induction might have been a celebration of his triumphs as a prosperous lawyer instead of a judge. But as he tells it, after graduating from Yale Law School, he was turned down by a series of top law firms, rejections he attributes to a perception that he was a token beneficiary of affirmative action. So began his grudging path to a judicial career that brought him great prestige but only modest material wealth after decades of financial struggle.

When he joined the Horatio Alger Association, Justice Thomas entered a world whose defining ethos of meritocratic success — that anyone can achieve the American dream with hard work, pluck and a little luck — was the embodiment of his own life philosophy, and a foundation of his jurisprudence. As he argued from the bench in his concurrence to the recent decision striking down affirmative action, the court should be “focusing on individuals as individuals,” rather than on the view that Americans are “all inexorably trapped in a fundamentally racist society.”

At Horatio Alger, he moved into the inner circle, a cluster of extraordinarily wealthy, largely conservative members who lionized him and all that he had achieved. While he has never held an official leadership position, in some ways he has become the association’s leading light. He has granted it unusual access to the Supreme Court, where every year he presides over the group’s signature event: a ceremony in the courtroom at which he places Horatio Alger medals around the necks of new lifetime members. One entrepreneur called it “the closest thing to being knighted in the United States.” At the same time, Justice Thomas has served as the group’s best messenger, meeting with and mentoring the recipients of millions of dollars a year in Horatio Alger college scholarships, many of whom come from backgrounds that mirror his own.

...

His friendships forged through Horatio Alger have brought him proximity to a lifestyle of unimaginable material privilege. Over the years, his Horatio Alger friends have welcomed him at their vacation retreats, arranged V.I.P. access to sporting events and invited him to their lavish parties. In 2004, he joined celebrities including Oprah Winfrey and Ed McMahon at a three-day 70th birthday bash in Montana for the industrialist Dennis Washington. Several Horatio Alger friends also helped finance the marketing of a hagiographic documentary about the justice in the wake of an HBO film that had resurfaced Anita Hill’s sexual harassment allegations against him during his confirmation.

Prominent among his Horatio Alger friends has been David Sokol, the onetime heir apparent to Warren Buffett at Berkshire Hathaway. Mr. Sokol describes the justice and his wife as “close personal friends,” and in 2015, the Sokols hosted the Thomases for a visit to their sprawling Montana ranch. The Sokols have also hosted the Thomases at their waterfront mansion in Florida.

...

Justice Thomas’s acceptance of such hospitality apparently predates his time on the court. A former girlfriend said in an interview that “a buddy” of Justice Thomas had paid for their vacation in the Bahamas in the mid-1980s, when he was chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A longtime friend said he had paid for the justice’s 1987 wedding reception.

At the Horatio Alger Association, the justice’s circle has also included Mr. Washington and Wayne Huizenga, the entrepreneur who built the Blockbuster Video empire and owned the Miami Dolphins. (Mr. Huizenga died in 2018.) In 2001, Mr. Huizenga’s foundation joined Mr. Crow in helping underwrite the restoration and dedication of a library wing in Savannah in the justice’s honor.

[Holman]

It always bothers me when people use "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps" to mean "working hard for success."

Pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps is literally impossible. The point of the image is that no one can do it, and that telling people to do it is a way of justifying inequality.

[Isgrimnur]

[geezer]

I don’t think I saw anyone post about this one, but it’s an important one: The case is Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co..

A little in the law weeds, but the case deals with personal jurisdiction, specifically where you can sue a company. In order for a company (or a person, but we all know they’re the same thing) to be sued in a given court, that court has to have personal jurisdiction over the company. Generally speaking, I can’t take a trip to NYC and eat a bad slice of pizza and then file a lawsuit in Oregon suing that New York pizza joint.

Under long standing precedent (a decision from 1945, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which is Con Law 101 and has been for decades) it has been settled law that the due process clause of the Constitution allows only two types of personal jurisdiction over corporations: (1) lawsuits relating to a corporation’s activities in the state where the lawsuit is filed; and (2) lawsuits in states where the corporation is incorporated or has its principal place of business.

Not anymore says Justice Gorsuch.

SCOTUS blog sums up the Mallory case as follows:

Holding: A Pennsylvania law requiring out-of-state companies that register to do business in Pennsylvania to agree to appear in Pennsylvania courts on “any cause of action” against them comports with the due process clause under Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 27, 2023. Justice Gorsuch announced the judgment of the court, delivered the opinion of the court with respect to Parts I and III-B, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Jackson joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II, III-A, and IV, in which Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Barrett filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh joined.

So now, any state can pass a law requiring businesses operating in the state to register to do business there and granting courts in the state personal jurisdiction without regard to the long standing due process considerations.

So, pretty much, fuck precedent.

I guess, but if this is the crux of the specific case (per SCOTUSBLOG)...

The plaintiff in the case was Robert Mallory, a Virginia man who worked for Norfolk Southern, a Virginia-based railroad, in Virginia and Ohio. After Mallory was diagnosed with colon cancer, he went to court in Pennsylvania and argued that he had been exposed to asbestos and other toxic chemicals while working for Norfolk Southern.

Norfolk Southern was required to register with the state as a condition of doing business there. Under Pennsylvania law, that registration gives Pennsylvania courts general jurisdiction over Norfolk Southern and any other company that register to do business in the state.

...it seems like the correct outcome to me. The company is doing business and has employees in the state. The fact that they're required to register to operate as an employer and conduct business, and this incur liability for their actions there, doesn't strike me as particularly egregious. What am I missing?

Edit.. oh wait - I read that wrong. Plaintiff lives in VA and was employed by (and theoretically damaged by) them in VA and OH? That's... weird. I assume he filed in PA for a reason?

[Smoove_B]

I do appreciate all the legal insight and discussion (seriously, not being sarcastic), but I would like to get back to discussing how corrupt Justice Thomas is:

Several lawyers who have had business before the supreme court, including one who successfully argued to end race-conscious admissions at universities, paid money to a top aide to Justice Clarence Thomas, according to the aide’s Venmo transactions. The payments appear to have been made in connection to Thomas’s 2019 Christmas party.

The payments to Rajan Vasisht, who served as Thomas’s aide from July 2019 to July 2021, seem to underscore the close ties between Thomas, who is embroiled in ethics scandals following a series of revelations about his relationship with a wealthy billionaire donor, and certain senior Washington lawyers who argue cases and have other business in front of the justice.

...

The amount of the payments is not disclosed, but the purpose of each payment is listed as either “Christmas party”, “Thomas Christmas Party”, “CT Christmas Party” or “CT Xmas party”, in an apparent reference to the justice’s initials.

However, it remains unclear what the funds were for.

Totally normal - and it's not just one.

The lawyers who made the Venmo transactions were: Patrick Strawbridge, a partner at Consovoy McCarthy who recently successfully argued that affirmative action violated the US constitution; Kate Todd, who served as White House deputy counsel under Donald Trump at the time of the payment and is now a managing party of Ellis George Cipollone’s law office; Elbert Lin, the former solicitor general of West Virginia who played a key role in a supreme court case that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; and Brian Schmalzbach, a partner at McGuire Woods who has argued multiple cases before the supreme court.

Other lawyers who made payments include Manuel Valle, a graduate of Hillsdale College and the University of Chicago Law School who clerked for Thomas last year and is currently working as a managing associate at Sidley, and Liam Hardy, who was working at the Department of Justice’s office of legal counsel at the time the payment was made and now serves as an appeals court judge for the armed forces.

Will Consovoy, who died earlier this year, also made a payment.

[El Guapo]

Any idea how much money we're talking about?

[Smoove_B]

Not yet, no. I don't care if it was $5 or $100. Appearances matter. Or not, as we continue to see.

[El Guapo]

Not yet, no. I don't care if it was $5 or $100. Appearances matter. Or not, as we continue to see.

Yeah, but it's a very different issue / scandal if it's $1 million or $100.

[Smoove_B]

I disagree; I don't think there's a "magic number" that makes this better or worse. He has clearly demonstrated a pattern of behavior that is unacceptable as a public servant; unthinkable as a Justice for the Supreme Court. All of this is just supporting information as to why he should (1) resign or (2) be removed.

[Blackhawk]

All of this is just supporting information as to why he should (1) resign or (2) be removed.

Sure. Us and what congress?

[El Guapo]

I disagree; I don't think there's a "magic number" that makes this better or worse. He has clearly demonstrated a pattern of behavior that is unacceptable as a public servant; unthinkable as a Justice for the Supreme Court. All of this is just supporting information as to why he should (1) resign or (2) be removed.

Really? You don't think it would be worse if they're reimbursing Thomas for $10 million in "christmas party" expenses vs. sending him $20 to cover his mulled wine costs?

[Smoove_B]

Really? You don't think it would be worse if they're reimbursing Thomas for $10 million in "christmas party" expenses vs. sending him $20 to cover his mulled wine costs?

You'll forgive me if I don't believe law firm partners are sending a Supreme Court Justice $50 to cover Xmas party expenses.

[El Guapo]

Really? You don't think it would be worse if they're reimbursing Thomas for $10 million in "christmas party" expenses vs. sending him $20 to cover his mulled wine costs?

You'll forgive me if I don't believe law firm partners are sending a Supreme Court Justice $50 to cover Xmas party expenses.

Seems unlikely to me too, I'm just pushing back on your assertion that the amount of money is irrelevant.

[Smoove_B]

I'm doing so because it seems to be a talking point - "it's not that much", "it's ok to accept gifts". He's demonstrated behaviors that are extremely concerning; I give him no benefit of the doubt - zero.

[El Guapo]

I'm doing so because it seems to be a talking point - "it's not that much", "it's ok to accept gifts". He's demonstrated behaviors that are extremely concerning; I give him no benefit of the doubt - zero.

I don't either. Mainly I'm just trying to calibrate how much of a distinct scandal / story this is. If it's a low amount then no one is going to care, even if the behavior was inappropriate.

[Zarathud]

Thomas knew or should have known the clerk was asking for outside funds. Asking for it is suspect. Not reporting it through channels is suspect. Treating it as ordinary business is suspect. A large amount makes it criminally worse.

[Smoove_B]

I don't either. Mainly I'm just trying to calibrate how much of a distinct scandal / story this is. If it's a low amount then no one is going to care, even if the behavior was inappropriate.

No one seems to care about vacations or that someone paid for his wedding reception. I don't expect this to move the needle either, but JFC already. It feels like they could have photos of him taking a giant bag of cash Snidley Whiplash style and everyone would sit around and say, "Well, what are you going to do?"

[ImLawBoy]

There's a big difference between minor, albeit inappropriate, actions and massive transactions. The devil is in the details.

The right is trying to "both sides" this with news that Justice Sotomayor's staff pushed her books at speaking engagements. It's a slap-on-the-wrist worthy offense, as she really shouldn't be using taxpayer funded staff to push her personal efforts, but it doesn't really give me the impression that she's on the take. If we say that "Any appearance of impropriety is evidence that a Justice is unworthy to serve" bright line stance, though, this would qualify.

Without knowing more about the latest (and the fact that we're talking about his "latest" issue is somewhat telling) issue with Thomas's appearance of impropriety, it's hard to say whether it justifies a slap on the wrist or is more real fuel to the fire. The fact that this money was coming from lawyers with potential business in front of the court leans more toward the latter, but if it is de minimis amounts of money, it's less concerning to me.

[LawBeefaroni]

The amount absolutely does matter. Federal employees can accept gifts valued under $20 (max $50 per year from one person). I don’t think SC Justices are technically covered under that restriction but it does show that there are generally acceptable levels of gifts.

Many employers have similar restrictions/allowances.

[El Guapo]

Plus, Republican would absolutely *love* to trot out a line like "Democrats are hounding Thomas over his staff collecting Christmas party reimbursement money" to obscure the big picture of what's going on with Thomas. The bigger the number, the less viable that line becomes.

[LordMortis]

I don't either. Mainly I'm just trying to calibrate how much of a distinct scandal / story this is. If it's a low amount then no one is going to care, even if the behavior was inappropriate.

No one seems to care about vacations or that someone paid for his wedding reception. I don't expect this to move the needle either, but JFC already. It feels like they could have photos of him taking a giant bag of cash Snidley Whiplash style and everyone would sit around and say, "Well, what are you going to do?"

Don't forget mom's mortgage.

[Holman]

Maybe more significant than the costs involved is the question of why lawyers/firms with business before the Court are socializing with members of the Court in the first place?

[ImLawBoy]

Maybe more significant than the costs involved is the question of why lawyers/firms with business before the Court are socializing with members of the Court in the first place?

That's less of a concern to me, honestly. I've socialized with people "on the other side of the table" in the past, and that wouldn't trip any concerns on my personal "appearance of impropriety" scales. I've also seen in a criminal court environment where judges are friendly with the attorneys who regularly appear in their courts. Being friendly/socializing with people doesn't in and of itself raise red flags for me. It's more concerning where one side is paying for these lavish social opportunities.

[GreenGoo]

That's less of a concern to me, honestly. I've socialized with people "on the other side of the table" in the past, and that wouldn't trip any concerns on my personal "appearance of impropriety" scales.

There's a huge difference between associating with the other side of the table, and associating with people who control the outcome of cases that your entire career depends on. We're not talking about a friendly chat as they pass by in the halls of justice.

This is beyond inappropriate. Even if not a single dollar's worth of goods or services changed hands, this is not how ethical people act.

I might excuse this behaviour if the lawyers and/or judges recused themselves from these cases. Did they? Don't answer that, we know the answer without bothering to look. That we know the answer to this question means we understand the ethical violations going on here.

There is no reason to give the benefit of the doubt. Zero. Stop doing unethical things while controlling the laws of the land. It's not rocket science.

[ImLawBoy]

That's less of a concern to me, honestly. I've socialized with people "on the other side of the table" in the past, and that wouldn't trip any concerns on my personal "appearance of impropriety" scales.

There's a huge difference between associating with the other side of the table, and associating with people who control the outcome of cases that your entire career depends on. We're not talking about a friendly chat as they pass by in the halls of justice.

This is beyond inappropriate. Even if not a single dollar's worth of goods or services changed hands, this is not how ethical people act.

I might excuse this behaviour if the lawyers and/or judges recused themselves from these cases. Did they? Don't answer that, we know the answer without bothering to look. That we know the answer to this question means we understand the ethical violations going on here.

There is no reason to give the benefit of the doubt. Zero. Stop doing unethical things while controlling the laws of the land. It's not rocket science.

If we're talking about going on lavish cruises together that one side is paying for, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax. If we're talking about a lawyer who has occasional work before the Supreme Court going to a justice's holiday party, it's not a concern. Attending a party is not the same thing as lavishing gifts on someone.

I brought up my experience because that's my initial lens for this - is this something I wouldn't do at my work because of the appearance of impropriety? Accepting gifts from a lawyer on the other side of the table is problematic, because then maybe I'm compromising my employer in exchange for the gifts. Going to lunch together (and splitting the bill) is not a problem. Attending a party held by the other attorney wouldn't implicate our ethical concerns. And my career does depend on maintaining my integrity with respect to opposing counsel.

I get the concern, but I think it's an overreaction to say that social interaction - including things that go much beyond a friendly handshake at the courthouse - is not how ethical people act.

[malchior]

If they were splitting bills that is one thing. However, in the light of what we are seeing the concern isn't the day-to-day stuff but instead at scale we are getting a glimpse how widespread the problem could be. It's bad enough that powerful people feel they can do whatever they want but at least that's a limited scope. If we had the will (we don't) we could tailor narrow protections and controls to address these problems.

My concern is that we are seeing hints now that the improprieties are more endemic and indicate a lack of ethical behavior throughout the government. It doesn't matter if it is $20 or $2M IMO. It's all corrosive to the already drained trust in our system. When I as an individual am worrying more about ethics and appearances while officiating a silly sport on skates than the justices, clerks, and aides of the Supreme Court? It's trouble. I don't know what to say anymore. I get why our society is fraying here. We're not Russia but this is how a country becomes Russia.

[GreenGoo]

I get the concern, but I think it's an overreaction to say that social interaction - including things that go much beyond a friendly handshake at the courthouse - is not how ethical people act.

I disagree, obviously.

Ask smoove how he feels about department heads hanging out with procurement officers in their spare time. Like, for example, at a private christmas party. Or perhaps pr0ner reviewing a patent application of a personal friend of his, without disclosing that relationship to his boss (who would likely reassign it to another patent...guy (sorry, I don't recall what they're called ).

There are rules in government that don't apply in private industry, and there's a reason for that. Public trust is not to be messed with. I feel like SCOTUS needs to be held to a higher ideal, not lesser, because of who they are.

How's public trust in SCOTUS lately? What could possibly go wrong if the public decides that SCOTUS is corrupt? They don't have to actually be corrupt, just that the public decides they are.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, it really rubs me the wrong way. I can't tell you how many "grand openings" I've skipped because as a compliance officer I didn't feel it was appropriate to show up - especially if they were giving out free stuff (even to the general public). I also made it a specific practice to never eat in the towns where I worked. Not because I feared them screwing with my food, but because of how it looked - that someone might think I was getting free or discounted meals in exchange for leniency.

The fact that he is accepting large gifts and is apparently so comfortable not only socializing with but receiving money through a cash-app from people that have business before the court? It's insane.

And to be clear, I don't think he's being swayed by a $50 reimbursement for a crudités platter. But I do think it shows he is comfortable with the idea of accepting inappropriate *things* and I don't believe for a second it hasn't influenced his judgement.