Not a fan of them, but I am inclined to agree with you on this one. Appearance of corruption for sitting out and letting the decision default, or much stronger appearance of corruption by sitting for it.
Unless sitting for arguments and abstaining from submitting or signing on to an opinion is an option… but even then, sitting for the arguments of a case you’re a defendant of is a bad, bad look, comes with no guarantee that you actually will abstain from opinion, and might not even be a valid way around quorum rules.
If the best decision available was to sit out on the ruling, then why'd they agree to hear the case in the first place? Now it's been ruled on and can't be revisited.
Sure, but do you think if the lower court decided that the case could move forward, the justices would've sat out? I doubt it.
This case was not ever going to move forward. It's was always a frivolous case brought by a mentally ill plaintiff that just hasn't hit bottom yet.
Do you have an example of them doing that? Or are you simply lampooning them despite them making the best decision available.
Thomas providing cover for his wife.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/supreme-court-clarence-thomas-ginni-thomas-texts-1327064/
Not a fan of them, but I am inclined to agree with you on this one. Appearance of corruption for sitting out and letting the decision default, or much stronger appearance of corruption by sitting for it.
Unless sitting for arguments and abstaining from submitting or signing on to an opinion is an option… but even then, sitting for the arguments of a case you’re a defendant of is a bad, bad look, comes with no guarantee that you actually will abstain from opinion, and might not even be a valid way around quorum rules.
If the best decision available was to sit out on the ruling, then why'd they agree to hear the case in the first place? Now it's been ruled on and can't be revisited.