Why The Supreme Court Should Be Handled Differently: The Currently Situation Of Justice


, , ,

First let’s meet our current Supreme Court Judges:

I believe it is important to have clarity about the involved major players. Here are the Supreme Court Justices Appointed to Seat since 1975, and who nominated them.

Now, let’s clarify how the Supreme Court Justices are appointed, our Judiciary System, and their duties, obligations, requirements and etc. I find it very important to really understand their position, our judicial system, and the roles they play in our society, and daily life.

The Judicial Branch

Article III of the Constitution of the United States guarantees that every person accused of wrongdoing has the right to a fair trial before a competent judge and a jury of one’s peers.

  1. HOME

Where the executive and legislative branches are elected by the people, members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869. The Constitution also grants Congress the power to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and to that end Congress has established the United States district courts, which try most federal cases, and 13 United States courts of appeals, which review appealed district court cases.

Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and Justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns.

Generally, Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts. In some cases, however — such as in the example of a dispute between two or more U.S. states — the Constitution grants the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, an authority that cannot be stripped by Congress.

The courts only try actual cases and controversies — a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court. This means that the courts do not issue advisory opinions on the constitutionality of laws or the legality of actions if the ruling would have no practical effect. Cases brought before the judiciary typically proceed from district court to appellate court and may even end at the Supreme Court, although the Supreme Court hears comparatively few cases each year.

Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The inferior courts are constrained by the decisions of the Supreme Court — once the Supreme Court interprets a law, inferior courts must apply the Supreme Court’s interpretation to the facts of a particular case.

The Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the land and the only part of the federal judiciary specifically required by the Constitution.

The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice. All Justices are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and hold their offices under life tenure. Since Justices do not have to run or campaign for re-election, they are thought to be insulated from political pressure when deciding cases. Justices may remain in office until they resign, pass away, or are impeached and convicted by Congress.

The Court’s caseload is almost entirely appellate in nature, and the Court’s decisions cannot be appealed to any authority, as it is the final judicial arbiter in the United States on matters of federal law. However, the Court may consider appeals from the highest state courts or from federal appellate courts. The Court also has original jurisdiction over limited types of cases, including those involving ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases between states.

Although the Supreme Court may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials. Instead, the Court’s task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied. Lower courts are obligated to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court when rendering decisions.

In almost all instances, the Supreme Court does not hear appeals as a matter of right; instead, parties must petition the Court for a writ of certiorari. It is the Court’s custom and practice to “grant cert” if four of the nine Justices decide that they should hear the case. Of the approximately 7,500 requests for certiorari filed each year, the Court usually grants cert to fewer than 150. These are typically cases that the Court considers sufficiently important to require their review; a common example is the occasion when two or more of the federal courts of appeals have ruled differently on the same question of federal law.

If the Court grants certiorari, Justices accept legal briefs from the parties to the case, as well as from amicus curiae, or “friends of the court.” These can include industry trade groups, academics, or even the U.S. government itself. Before issuing a ruling, the Supreme Court usually hears oral arguments, where the various parties to the suit present their arguments and the Justices ask them questions. If the case involves the federal government, the Solicitor General of the United States presents arguments on behalf of the United States. The Justices then hold private conferences, make their decision, and (often after a period of several months) issue the Court’s opinion, along with any dissenting arguments that may have been written.

The Judicial Process

Article III of the Constitution of the United States guarantees that every person accused of wrongdoing has the right to a fair trial before a competent judge and a jury of one’s peers.

The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution provide additional protections for those accused of a crime. These include:

  • A guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law
  • Protection against being tried for the same crime twice (“double jeopardy”)
  • The right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury
  • The right to cross-examine witnesses, and to call witnesses to support their case
  • The right to legal representation
  • The right to avoid self-incrimination
  • Protection from excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments

Criminal proceedings can be conducted under either state or federal law, depending on the nature and extent of the crime. A criminal legal procedure typically begins with an arrest by a law enforcement officer. If a grand jury chooses to deliver an indictment, the accused will appear before a judge and be formally charged with a crime, at which time he or she may enter a plea.

The defendant is given time to review all the evidence in the case and to build a legal argument. Then, the case is brought to trial and decided by a jury. If the defendant is determined to be not guilty of the crime, the charges are dismissed. Otherwise, the judge determines the sentence, which can include prison time, a fine, or even execution.

Civil cases are similar to criminal ones, but instead of arbitrating between the state and a person or organization, they deal with disputes between individuals or organizations. In civil cases, if a party believes that it has been wronged, it can file suit in civil court to attempt to have that wrong remedied through an order to cease and desist, alter behavior, or award monetary damages. After the suit is filed and evidence is gathered and presented by both sides, a trial proceeds as in a criminal case. If the parties involved waive their right to a jury trial, the case can be decided by a judge; otherwise, the case is decided and damages awarded by a jury.

After a criminal or civil case is tried, it may be appealed to a higher court — a federal court of appeals or state appellate court. A litigant who files an appeal, known as an “appellant,” must show that the trial court or administrative agency made a legal error that affected the outcome of the case. An appellate court makes its decision based on the record of the case established by the trial court or agency — it does not receive additional evidence or hear witnesses. It may also review the factual findings of the trial court or agency, but typically may only overturn a trial outcome on factual grounds if the findings were “clearly erroneous.” If a defendant is found not guilty in a criminal proceeding, he or she cannot be retried on the same set of facts.

Federal appeals are decided by panels of three judges. The appellant presents legal arguments to the panel, in a written document called a “brief.” In the brief, the appellant tries to persuade the judges that the trial court made an error, and that the lower decision should be reversed. On the other hand, the party defending against the appeal, known as the “appellee” or “respondent,” tries in its brief to show why the trial court decision was correct, or why any errors made by the trial court are not significant enough to affect the outcome of the case.

The court of appeals usually has the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc — that is, by a larger group of judges of the court of appeals for the circuit.

A litigant who loses in a federal court of appeals, or in the highest court of a state, may file a petition for a “writ of certiorari,” which is a document asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court, however, is not obligated to grant review. The Court typically will agree to hear a case only when it involves a new and important legal principle, or when two or more federal appellate courts have interpreted a law differently. (There are also special circumstances in which the Supreme Court is required by law to hear an appeal.) When the Supreme Court hears a case, the parties are required to file written briefs and the Court may hear oral argument.

The Supreme Court of the United States: All Justices are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and hold their offices under life tenure.

So now that we understand ‘Our Judicial System’ let’s move forward. How did we get to our current tawdry SCOTUS. The below article was featured in JEZEBEL just 2 days ago, as are similar outlets and articles are speaking to the current status of our SCOTUS. Why is this important? Because the lurid acts being committed by the highest Judicial Authorities is becoming a more, and more frequent occurrence, for one, but also the lengths the Judicial Authorities, our Government bodies, and certain Corporations have gone to conceal these acts, and/or redefine their actions to best suit their narrativeand agenda. Meanwhile, all at the cost of ‘We the People’, and our lives.

We seemingly have gone from an unbiased legal system, to a politically driven SCOTUS, where not just politics influence their decisions, but also their personal lives, and religion have now entered the Courts, and their rulings.

The article as seen in JEZEBEL, May 2, 2023:


A Non-Exhaustive List of Supreme Court Justice Scandals Since 1991

Susan Rinkunas

May 2, 2023, 2:20 pm

The Supreme Court’s popularity is in the toilet. For months now, public support for the increasingly polarized institution has been tanking—likely hastened by its unprecedented ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade, the first time the court’s ever revoked a right it’d previously granted—and, for the first time, a majority of Americans want to see the court expanded. Yet, in the face of these stats, many of the justices don’t seem chastened at all!

All those polls were conducted before the rash of recent reporting that’s uncovered various ethics scandals involving Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and John Roberts and their alleged financial conflicts of interest. The investigations underscored the fact that it’s the justices’ call on whether they recuse themselves from certain cases, and there’s no way to appeal a failure to recuse. Even Sen. Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin (D.Ill)—with whom I have beef—has come out swinging, saying that “the highest court in the land shouldn’t have the lowest standard of ethics in the federal government.” (That’s good stuff, Senator, now issue some subpoenas.)

So why are lawmakers and advocates talking about court reform? Well, it goes back years with some of these folks. Let’s roll the tapes!

Clarence Thomas Allegedly Lying Under Oath

Photo:  Getty (Getty Images)
Photo: Getty (Getty Images)

During his 1991 Senate confirmation hearing, Thomas claimed he didn’t sexually harass Anita Hill or any other women coworkers during his time at federal agencies—when there’s evidence to refute that. Thomas did, however, say that the allegations were part of a “high-tech lynching.” He said, “it is a message that, unless you kow-tow to an old order, this is what will happen to you, you will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”

Here’s journalist Jill Abramson writing in 2018:

To my surprise, the notion of impeaching Thomas resurfaced during the 2016 campaign. In the thousands of emails made public during the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton, there was one curious document from her State Department files that caught my attention, though it went largely unremarked upon in the press. Labeled “Memo on Impeaching Clarence Thomas” and written by a close adviser, the former right-wing operative David Brock, in 2010, the seven-page document lays out the considerable evidence, including material from our book, that Thomas lied to the Judiciary Committee when he categorically denied that he had discussed pornographic films or made sexual comments in the office to Hill or any other women who worked for him. When I recently interviewed Brock, he said that Clinton “wanted to be briefed” on the evidence that Thomas lied in order to be confirmed to his lifelong seat on the Court. He said he had no idea if a President Hillary Clinton would have backed an effort to unseat Thomas.

And, yes, there’s much more to say about Thomas, so please trudge along with me.

Brett Kavanaugh Allegedly Lying Under Oath

Where to begin? Justice Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed in 2018 despite credible allegations that he’d sexually assaulted women in high school and college. One of his former roommates said he lied under oath when he claimed not to know the meaning of a sexual euphemism while other classmates said he lied about never blacking out from drinking at Yale, among many other details. The FBI received more than 4,500 tips about Kavanaugh and did nothing with them beyond punting them to the Trump administration since the agency said it was only conducting a routine background check. In January, a surprise documentary premiered at Sundance detailing other instances of sexual misconduct that the FBI did not investigate.

Kavanaugh also appears to have lied under oath about his work in the Bush Administration during prior confirmation hearings in 2004 and 2006.

Amy Coney Barrett’s Ties to Alliance Defending Freedom

Justice Amy Coney Barrett has connections to the right-wing Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom—the same group that argued the case the Supreme Court used to overturn Roe and is also representing the plaintiffs in the baseless but still hugely consequential abortion pill lawsuit. The organization paid her for speaking five times at its Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a summer program for law students meant to inspire a “distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law.”

ADF is also the legal counsel in a nominal “free speech” case that could actually destroy nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people; it’s called 303 Creative v. Elenis. Barrett was also a member of a religious group, People of Praise, that expelled members who had gay sex. In 2022, former members of the group called for her to recuse herself from 303 Creative; she did not. During a 2017 confirmation hearing for a spot on a lower court, Barrett claimed not to know that ADF had an anti-LGBTQ agenda.

Plus, uh, Barrett getting confirmed in late October 2020 after millions of people had already voted in a presidential election—an election that would oust the man who nominated her—is just an eternal stain on this woman’s tenure.

Clarence Thomas’ Connections to a GOP Megadonor

For years, Justice Clarence Thomas failed to report that billionaire and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow took him on luxury vacations or that Crow bought property from him at inflated prices, including the house where Thomas’ mother still lives and pays zero in rent. This isn’t even the first time Thomas has had to amend his disclosure forms. In 2011, he faced scrutiny for not reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars of his wife’s income from conservative groups including the Heritage Foundation. Thomas then amended 13 years of his reports. Speaking of his wife…

The Ginni Thomas of It All

Justice Thomas’ wife, Ginni, has not only earned millions from conservative groups but she’s also a Trump-supporting MAGA activist who wanted to overturn the 2020 election. She sent nearly 30 text messages to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows urging him to help overturn the election and also badgered state lawmakers about it. Here’s one of her texts to Meadows: “Biden crime family…will be living in barges off GITMO to face military tribunals for sedition.”

Ginni has made headlines not only for being on the exclusive email listserv of Thomas’ former law clerks but also for sharing pro-Trump messages and dismay over the election results. Most notably, she testified under oath before the House’s January 6th Committee that she believed the 2020 election was stolen. Justice Thomas didn’t recuse himself in any cases related to the election or January 6.

Samuel Alito Allegedly Leaking a 2014 Opinion

An explosive New York Times report alleged that Justice Samuel Alito leaked the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby birth control decision during a 2014 dinner with a pair of the Supreme Court Historical Society’s evangelical Christian donors. Alito was the author of that ruling—as well as the Dobbs decision which overturned Roe—a draft of which was leaked in full to a journalist in May 2022. Huh! But Alito has denied leaking either and called the Dobbs leak a “grave betrayal” that made the conservative justices “targets of assassination.” And he’s still whining about it to this day—methinks he doth protest too much.

Neil Gorsuch Failing to Disclose a Real Estate Deal

Justice Neil Gorsuch sold a massive property he co-owned to the CEO of a law firm that often argues cases before the court—but he didn’t name the buyer, he only reported income from an LLC. The 40-acre Colorado property had been on the market since 2015, and Greenberg Traurig CEO Brian Duffy bought it just nine days after Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate in 2017. Gorsuch has previously disclosed the names of people who’ve given him things like a fishing rod and a pair of cowboy boots, but no name this time. He made somewhere between $250,001 and $500,000 from the sale.

John Roberts’ Wife Earning Millions from Big Law

Not even Chief Justice John Roberts has avoided the appearance of impropriety. His wife, Jane, was paid more than $10 million in recruiting commissions over eight years from “elite law firms” that also had business before the court. Naturally! Roberts’ own disclosure forms only list Jane as receiving a “salary” as a legal recruiter and don’t detail the amount she’s earned or which law firms the money came from. Seems fine.

Ok folks, this is exactly why the Supreme Court should be handled differently than it is currently. Six of the nine current Supreme Justices, have some sort of tawdry, disgraceful, and/or questionable behavior, actions, dealings, and ethics, all whilst making life altering decisions on the ‘Law of the Land’, in finality usually.

Clarence Thomas is a prime example of SCOTUS not operatating properly or ethically. This doesn’t even include his wife’s treasonist actions. Term Limits folks, they should have Term Limits. Also, maybe ‘We the People’, should have more input, and more weight in the decisions placed by ‘The Court’.

So, this blog piece op-ed was inspired by ProPublica, an outstanding non biased investigative journalism website. Read their piece below, and other articles at:


Continue reading