I think the first question to ask is, if the U.S. had a democratic president during the time of this judgement, would the vote granting presidential still have been 6-3 along party lines?
Perhaps if it had been a democrat president more of the liberal justices would have voted for it too, but that still indicates a corrupted court. It's just corrupted the other way.
There was additional appearance of corruption in that Alito refused to recuse himself even though he projected a clear bias towards the Jan. 6 riots by both flying a flag supporting the rioters [1].
It's nine un-elected people with no term limits who make up a third of our government. No matter who is in charge it's going to be a little corrupt I'd say.
> I think the first question to ask is, if the U.S. had a democratic president during the time of this judgement, would the vote granting presidential still have been 6-3 along party lines?
> Perhaps if it had been a democrat president more of the liberal justices would have voted for it too, but that still indicates a corrupted court. It's just corrupted the other way.
Eh? Biden, a Democrat, was President during the time of that judgement.
The primary benefactor of the outcome of the case is clearly Trump as he's the one with open Federal lawsuits, but the POTUS at the time was a Democrat and the 2024 election had not happened yet either. So whatever immunity power the court granted, it was granting on an ongoing basis to Biden.
> There was additional appearance of corruption in that Alito refused to recuse himself even though he projected a clear bias towards the Jan. 6 riots by both flying a flag supporting the rioters [1].
There's an incredibly blurry line between bias an opinion. Having an opinion is not grounds for recusal. If he was at the capital or somehow involved with a lower court interaction, that'd be a conflict.
> It's nine un-elected people with no term limits who make up a third of our government. No matter who is in charge it's going to be a little corrupt I'd say.
I really don't think they're corrupt at all. There's just this sad framing of "us v.s. them" that makes people think that the only way someone could disagree is they are corrupt. I don't see it like that though. I just see a core difference of opinion (and I happen to side with one side much more than the other).
> Eh? Biden, a Democrat, was President during the time of that judgement.
Sorry, bad typing. The judgement was for the ex-president while Biden was in office and my point was that the spread might have been different if the case was against a Democrat.
I agree about your line between bias and opinion, and I might have my own biases telling me when an opinion is a bias. However the judge for life thing we have here is not good for anybody.
The presidential immunity case is another good one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024)
I think the first question to ask is, if the U.S. had a democratic president during the time of this judgement, would the vote granting presidential still have been 6-3 along party lines?
Perhaps if it had been a democrat president more of the liberal justices would have voted for it too, but that still indicates a corrupted court. It's just corrupted the other way.
There was additional appearance of corruption in that Alito refused to recuse himself even though he projected a clear bias towards the Jan. 6 riots by both flying a flag supporting the rioters [1].
It's nine un-elected people with no term limits who make up a third of our government. No matter who is in charge it's going to be a little corrupt I'd say.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/scotus-alito-flag-controversy-...