How corrupt is the American Supreme Court?

[Blind groper]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/04/1 ... reme-Court

This question came from some reading I was doing, on the life of Abraham Lincoln. It mentioned the Dred Scott decision, of about 150 years ago, just before the American Civil War. This decision of the supreme court was in favor of slavery. It was also based on a litany of lies, which Lincoln shot down in flames. The question that came to me, is why? The only answer that made sense was that the supreme court of the time was bribed by slave owners, who were immensely rich.

Well, that was then. Have things changed? The reference above suggests not. I do not know enoug of American politics to make a clear judgement of yes or no, so it might be interesting to ask this forum.

On the international list of corruption by country, the USA is placed 17th, which sounds OK till you realise that it is almost at the bottom of the list of western nations, as most corrupt.

So, is the supreme court of the USA still open to bribes? Is it still corrupt? How corrupt?

[Svartalf]

given decisions like Kelo vs New london? very

[Blind groper]

Svartalf

That was certainly a strange decision. Do you think the court was 'influenced' to redefine eminent domain?

[Brian Peacock]

Perhaps the court merely reflects the mores of its time? Law may be set by statue, but it is adhered to and administered as much by custom as by reference to the draft.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Perhaps the court merely reflects the mores of its time? Law may be set by statue, but it is adhered to and administered as much by custom as by reference to the draft.

It usually reflects the mores of 2-3 administrations ago, when its current members were appointed!

[Brian Peacock]

There's probably something in that too. The court and judiciary seems far from independent or immune to and from the influence of rapacious political short-termism.

[Svartalf]

Svartalf

That was certainly a strange decision. Do you think the court was 'influenced' to redefine eminent domain?

Unless a majority of the court, many of whom I have to recognize as great legal minds, just succumbed to an epidemy of the bonkers, I see no other explanation than well applied 'lobbying'

[klr]

I very much doubt the current Supreme Court is open to bribes, or any form of corruption. That does not mean I would trust them to always do the right thing. In fact, that would probably be the exception rather than the rule.

[Ian]

I very much doubt the current Supreme Court is open to bribes, or any form of corruption. That does not mean I would trust them to always do the right thing. In fact, that would probably be the exception rather than the rule.

Right. It's not the members themselves who are crooks (although Clarence Thomas has seemed a bit iffy at times), but rather the problem is the influence of Congress and special interests in the nominating process. They often have a great effect on who is chosen before the President even mentions his choice. And, of course, the President and Congress are very much beholden to their donors and others with behind-the-scenes clout.

[Brian Peacock]

It seems to me that the court's supreme failing is not living up to the fixed views others have about the 'true' meaning and 'correct' interpretation of the constitution.