The vehicle is a key part of the justice’s just-folks persona. It’s also a luxury motor coach that was funded by someone else’s money.

Archive link: https://archive.ph/zQdpf

  • DarkGamer
    link
    fedilink
    1101 year ago

    This is what corruption looks like. Thomas and Alito are unethical human garbage and don’t deserve to be on the highest court.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
        link
        261 year ago

        Can confirm, they are laughed at in law schools. They clique up. None of the actual smart kids like them. The smartest federalist society members are just smart enough to be dangerous. Mostly religious types. Not very diverse.

        • @afraid_of_zombies
          link
          91 year ago

          They basically believe that the law can only be understood in the original sense that it was written in, yes? Instead of the law being living it is dead.

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
            link
            7
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Very basically, yes.

            This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dictionary is, a snapshot of a language in time. The meaning of words change over time. “Nice” used to mean stupid in English.

            They believe they can divine the intentions of the dead, that they hear the voices of dead people, and can know what they mean.

            They also believe that from the writings of a collective, enacted in the form of statutes, they can discern a single, unified intention. This is of course completely ridiculous, but to hear them tell it, they figured out a way to interpret law “objectively,” which is also of course ridiculous.

            I’m sure they are nice people.

            • @afraid_of_zombies
              link
              31 year ago

              Thanks. I know very little about this stuff. My understanding is that there is an order to understand the law. Canons of construction, right? So wouldn’t that mean that the intent behind the law can only be invoked if the text as written is open to multiple understanding? If that is the case how can they invoke that if the text can never be ambiguous?

              If the text must only be looked at exactly as written you can’t claim it could be ambiguous. If you can’t claim it is ambiguous then you can’t worry about what they really meant to say. Guess I am lost. It seems like they are arguing for a method that if fully applied would mean the method can’t be applied.

              What mistake am I making? Also thanks again.

              • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
                link
                21 year ago

                You’re looking for logical consistency where there isn’t any. It’s all made up.

                There is no one right or wrong way to interpret law. For every canon of statutory construction, there is an equal and opposite canon. My textbook called them thrusts and parries.

                Conservatives believe in a plain meaning approach: follow the literal text no matter what because the cold hard text is the best evidence of the legislative intent. If the result is obviously absurd and offensive to justice, too bad, it’s the legislature’s job to fix the statute, not the court’s. Conservatives hate they idea of any power to do affirmative justice resting with the courts, they want it in Congress where their rich benefactors and buy congresspersons.

                The problem with that is that legislatures are messy and words are imprecise. The words represent individual understandings and compromises of single members and caucuses, not the whole body. Even when Conservatives say they are following the original text / plain meaning, they are still doing subjective interpretation, just without admitting it.

                Purposivism is the idea that statutes should be interpreted and applied by courts with reference to the purpose of the law and common sense.

            • @aidan
              link
              01 year ago

              But a constitution is not a dictionary. It is designed to restrict the current majority, if the majority redefines what the words in the constitution mean it is no restriction.

        • @aidan
          link
          21 year ago

          What about Scalia?

      • DarkGamer
        link
        fedilink
        141 year ago

        It’s one thing to disagree politically, it’s another to take bribes and lie about it or cover it up.

    • @billbasher
      link
      281 year ago

      Multiple justices lying under oath somehow doesn’t disqualify them. Ridiculous