US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling | Hacker News Reader

US Supreme Court curbed public scrutiny as it boosted security before Roe ruling

theguardian.com

49 pointsrntn38 comments

So they don't want the public to have details regarding their security processes. Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court?

It's just a side channel signal that they are self-aware of making unpopular decisions?

Or that they're aware that there are threats against their safety.

And they they’re aware Or implies it’s not both.

The Supreme Court has long made unpopular opinions, but it’s recently lost the impression of impartiality. These things are inherently linked.

Who exactly wouldn't be aware of that, no matter which way the decision went?

> Why is it in the public interest to know when the shift change is for the guards at the supreme court?

How can the public verify that security is sufficiently without holes if the public doesn't have access to details? How can the public verify that their taxes, which paid for that security, are well-spent?

While I don't personally believe all security details should be publicly available, I do think the details should be made available after-the-fact via FOIA. Eg, "what were security details on suchandsuch date", with say a 3-month minimum past-time limit. Of course, it can be difficult to learn from problems 3 months ago, but that difficulty must be balanced with "oh crap there's a problem we have to quietly fix before someone's hurt"

Does the public have that kind of access with, say, a military base? The White House? I doubt it.

> Does the public have that kind of access with, say, a military base? The White House? I doubt it.

Public certainly can request information via FOIA, but US government has many different security classifications and timeframes. Your mileage may vary but I would argue that yes, the public does have that kind of access, even if timeframes might be decades instead of days or months.

This article is almost entirely about plausibly reasonable security measures in response to credible threats/risks.

If members of SCOTUS are showing up to billionaire eyes-wide-shut parties in the forest, where bribes are paired with underage-goat kompromat, that's a problem, and you'd want transparency for that. But, sadly, due to our current cultural problems in public discourse and reasoning, much/most of the populace is being riled up by social media propaganda/shilling/mobs/habit, some people milk movements of public figures as fuel for that, and occasionally some mentally ill person acts on the noise and information. Some security is appropriate.

But, so long as we're being understanding about the importance of privacy for some privileged few, in the interests of equality...

> That bill passed into law the next year and outlawed the publication of personally identifying information about federal and supreme court justices online by data brokers and [...]

How about also protect the rest of us from that surveillance/stalking industry?

I wonder if they'll hear any challenges to that law.

I mean, yeah. They knew they were about to make a ruling that was unpopular with the masses.

The Supreme Court only exists because of America's love affair with British common law. It's a relic of a bygone era, like the drinking age being 21.

Alito was on the phone with Trump just one day before he ruled on his case.

That is never ever supposed to happen and probably never has before.

It doesn't get any more corrupt than that.

Bush v. Gore might be close.

Justices cannot talk to the president?

Judges in general cannot talk to parties with business before their court. Fortunately / unfortunately, our Supreme Court has no ethical standards, so there’s no prohibition here like there would be for a lower court.

BTW I think you meant “President elect”, who is still a private citizen.

I would love to see what they talked about, do you have the transcript?

Nope. And that's why we used to have these norms -- to avoid the appearance of impropriety. It used to be taken quite seriously by judges, even Supreme Court justices.

Abe Fortas famously resigned from the court after it was learned he had accepted a $20k/year retainer from a financier. It seems so quaint compared to today's open corruption.

Why is this flagged?

What makes me livid is a number of these Trump appointees lied in to congress when they said "Roe was settled law" (It's a precedent, ... "settled" here meaning "why change it, it's the law of the land") only to waste no time in unsettling it.

The Trump / MAGA / right-wing takeover of America is a thing I never would have wished even on my enemies.

This was a clear rhetorical tactic, the type a lawyer would employ. Saying Roe is settled law is a factual observation about the world, not a statement of personal opinion. When you look at it that way, it wasn't a lie, but an observation that is no longer true.

When you’re splitting hairs over whether an intentionally misleading response is technically a lie, it’s a good sign the whole system has lost whatever good faith it once had.

Doesn’t have to be “the whole system.” You can pin blame directly on the people doing it.

The system everyone sort of assumed would punish bad behavior, it turns out did not at all punish bad behavior.

It is both down to the system and the individuals.

I don’t think this captures it all. The “observation” was also about whether they would change the world. They strongly implied they wouldn’t, then did anyway.

They didn't imply it but people inferred it because they are skilled at using language to persuade people without lying.

So the US Supreme Court is corrupt, well why not join the rest of the US Gov. in getting "gifts and tips".

Clarence Thomas did exactly this.

Samuel Alito as well.

https://www.propublica.org/article/samuel-alito-luxury-fishi...

Which ones haven't? RGB, Sotomayor, Breyer, Jackson have all done the same things.

Plus Gorsuch, Roberts, etc. In most cases though, it's important to see the purpose of, and who paid for, such trips. Harvard paying for someone to travel as a visiting professor is in a different category than a private billionaire sponsoring a fishing trip.

I have always maintained, while he was sitting and afterwards, that Scalia's deep corruption was one of the only things protecting US civil liberties. His desire not to be examined informed his decisions on investigative overreach.

The liberal justices sitting now are leaders in corruption, so it's not exclusive to people whose decisions we don't like.

Evidence please?

Are their rulings not evidence enough?

To prove "liberal justices are leaders in corruption?" Uhhh no.

Not only should GP provide evidence that liberal justices are routinely receiving bribes, but that, as "leaders", they are dwarf the ones Clarence Thomas took and didn't report.

The liberal justices sitting now are leaders in corruption

wow this is the craziest thing written here in years. unless clarence turned liberal and we missed the news? or kavanaugh paid her own debts with monopoly money. you are too funny (if you are trying to be …)

The SCOTUS has outlived its usefulness. The next step is for States to actively begin disregarding its decisions and forcing the Federal government to enforce its unpopular mandates against States which chose to not comply which will be deeply unpopular.

You mean like Arkansas’ handling of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling?

> The SCOTUS has outlived its usefulness.

What about their refusal to explain their security measures convinced you of this?

> The next step is for States to actively begin disregarding its decisions and forcing the Federal government to enforce its unpopular mandates against States which choose to not comply which will be deeply unpopular.

Is that the next step, or has it happened before, most notably during desegregation? Was forcing the states to desegregate right, even if it was unpopular?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com