Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/02/27/satirical-websites-clarence-thomas-joke-an-a.html
…
6 Likes
You ever think, “ya, that’s funny, but too easy”?
Sadly, this is essentially happening at the SCOTUS level, and I’m not trying to both sides this, but the left leaning justices aren’t exactly fighting it. Although, the left justices are playing at below the PeeWee level, Alito and Thomas are Sosa and McGwire level cheats. Very reminiscent of how good cops don’t turn on bad cops.
2 Likes
I slightly hope he takes John Oliver up on his offer ($2.5 million dollar new road coach + $1mm a year until one or the other dies) just so he leaves, but also at the same time fear what that shows us about the judiciary.
I just watched JO’s bit about the Supreme Court last night and realized he is right - we do hold them in a completely different light. When I toured the SC 12 years ago, I remember thinking about how amazing it was that this small group existed as impartial balancing arms on our government, completely immune from the chaos. I know…live and learn.
7 Likes
Justice Thomas and his corruption are no laughing matter.
I imagine that at The Onion offices, as with other fine purveyors of the art of biting satire, laughter isn’t always the desired response.
Satire normally is a form of humor, but I suspect very few readers laughed when Jonathan Swift modestly proposed that the Irish eat there own babies.
Which I guess means that although I didn’t laugh, I appreciate this Onion piece. The more attention Thomas’s venality receives the better.
12 Likes
I’m not sure what they can do, though? I don’t know how the rule making works, but it’s clear that there is no internal enforcement mechanism. I think this is sort of falling into legal gray areas like trump’s insurrection. There is an insurrection clause, but since it’s never been tried for a president there are questions enough that we are only really seeing it being codified right now. For instance, in my understanding the DOJ was essentially waiting on the House investigation findings as they weren’t restricted by the same discovery laws a criminal trial would be. Then there is the question of presidential immunity to sort out, which Smith tried to expedite with a direct petition to SCOTUS, but they determined it needed to wend its way through the judiciary first.
I have heard a lot of vocal dissent from Jackson and Sotomayor, especially. This usually takes the form of pushback during oral arguments and occasionally fairly pointed attacks in the press, but ultimately I think because it’s an unsettled issue they are a bit hamstrung. That being said IANASCOTUS.
3 Likes
Right, there is very little they, or apparently, anyone can do. All this stupid precedence regarding insurrection and separately, how to handle SCOTUS because in the past, it seems shame, honor and integrity existed.
Self policing doesn’t work, so actual checks and balances between the 3 branches needs to.
Worth a read from the Brennan Center for Justice:
New Supreme Court Ethics Code Is Designed to Fail
5 Likes
Yup. Their most famous issue of all time (back when they rolled out content in a weekly format) was the first issue to come out following the 9/11 attacks. Their editor said at the time that it wouldn’t be the kind of jokes that made you want to laugh, but the kind of jokes that made you want to cry.
4 Likes
Since the whole “pack the courts” debate began I’ve been thinking a lot about how to counter the inherent polarity, lack of representation and lack of accountability in the court. I don’t think that a partisan packing would do the job as the next party would simply say “they did it” and re-pack it for their side. I fantasize about some sort of legally-enforceable mechanism, possibly an amendment, that sets forth a timetable to get to a much larger court, wherein the sitting president only gets a limited number of appointments per year/term, but the result is a court of, say 15+ justices. This would devalue the incredible power of individual justices, diversify the court perspective (at least for Dem presidents) and bring a more deliberative tone to proceedings. It’s a fantasy, I know, but seeing as they’re in many ways the final arbiter of legality and they are clearly swayed by partisanship, I don’t see how else we get to accountability in light of the separation of powers.
4 Likes
3 Likes
Not anymore at least…
4 Likes
3 Likes
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
