• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    I mean, they could have just as easily voted to just not accept the case.
    Recusal is literally the only ethical option available, and they had other perfectly routine ways of getting the same result.

    Like, what would you have had them do instead? Vote to hear it and then decide their own guilt? Vote to hear a case and then recuse themselves from hearing it? Or just say “no, we believe the lower court ruled correctly/the case doesn’t meet our criteria”?

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I think this was a message. “Don’t sue the Supreme Court Justices for their official work, because we won’t even dignifiy it with a response.”

      Supreme Court Justices are absolutely immune from suit for their official acts and decisions. All judges are. The remedy to a bad call by a judge is an appeal, not a collateral lawsuit.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/collateral_attack

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Yeah, but this way they can pretend theyre taking the high road and also flex that they control the SC…

      My point is when 6 members of the SC are all defendants in a case the Supreme Court has been asked to rule on, we’ve got some serious fucking problems with our system.

      We’ve tried ignoring it for a decade now. And shit is clearly just getting worse