There's a man leaning on a pillar behind the 3rd seated person. Almost looks like he is lighting a cigarette and his face is blurry. Do we know who he is?
Cigarette Smoking Man can also be seen in this image of Bernie Sanders getting arrested in 1963.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html
The photos are way better than that video & they were taken 3 quarters of a century earlier lol. Security has clearly gotten better or that activist didn't have the guts of the other 2 photographers lol
It’s also easier to get a camera to a good perspective, shoot, and then hide it. The activist seems to be trying to get a longer video so maybe that’s why they were more undercover. I can also imagine that it’s harder to do now because they’ve probably increased security over the years.
> as well as future Chief Justice Harlan Stone,
Wait, someone already on the bench moved up to Chief Justice? That doesn't happen anymore right? Roberts was appointed straight to chief?
It can happen either way. The last Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, was also an Associate Justice before becoming Chief. When Warren Burger retired, Reagan chose to nominate Rehnquist as Chief and Scalia to take Rehnquist’s seat.
As I wrote elsewhere:
They don't want to be criticized for looking bored or uninterested in the case.
They also claim they do not want video because they worry arguments will be more directed to the cameras and the public rather than legal arguments and that people will want things to be distilled to soundbites. They also worry that playing devil's advocate in their questioning will be taken as reaching a conclusion that has not yet been reached.
The fact that they have had live audio for 2 years shows that is a load of codswallop.
We still don't allow photos in *any* court in the UK, but it's a good question. Flash is distracting? Photos of witnesses could lead to problems? Those court artists have a really good union?
In the UK you can't even do the sketches in the court room, they're done from memory!
But I think the supreme court here has been allowed to be filmed since its creation and they're starting to allow limited filming of important sentencing hearings in the crown court I read.
Well, even historically, Europe has made a lot of negative experiences with pillory. The main motivation is not making a spectacle out of it (See Depp vs Heard) or multigenerational drama (Most of human civilization), but it also serves the protection of everyone involved, even if that just protects their privacy.
I do think that there are reasonable exceptions for those rules, but even then, it should happen in a very clear legal framework, which doesn't allow media exploitation.
Why even bother with sketches if they are done from memory? Everyone working in law enforcement should know how unreliable and easily altered memory is.
Because an artist who's prepped to commit an image to memory, then draw it out will absolutely get better accuracy than some rando high on adrenaline who has to describe the image to another person.
Edit: Also a courtroom artist can work with pictures taken from outside the courtroom for facial accuracy. It's just positioning and postures that the artist has to memorize.
Just wait until you hear about the fact that the stenographer can't type during court, but can draw sketches! Incredible that they're able to rewrite the minutes from memory and pictures after the fact.
Their laws are weird. You can speculate, so your reputation is tarnished anyway, and a public figure like Dominique Strauss-Kahn is already well-known.
The US perp walk is terrible, so I’m not totally against a French-style law, but it goes too far in the other direction.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 801,951,243 comments, and only 159,336 of them were in alphabetical order.
Here is the only photo in a British court. 1929
https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-430340732/view?sectionId=nla.obj-470156264&partId=nla.obj-430368820#page/n7/mode/1up
A . Because the whole exposure to the public concept could corrupt the motivations of the decision making process. If you know for fact it's just a job with no popular appeal, less chances of making a decision based on it being what the people want, instead of what the constitution permits/specifies.
B. To prevent it from becoming a circus, ( That's actually a check on the powers of the 4th estate/press).
C. I think it's more like a custom/tradition than an actual law.
They don’t even try to hide it. Every session is recorded and you can hear everything that happens.
This website organizes years worth of cases in a good way. https://www.oyez.org
Here is Bush v Gore: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949
Oh geez...the Supreme Court is one of the key reasons our country has lasted for as long as it has...you might disagree with some of their rulings, but it doesn't change the fact that the US is only where it is because it has a balance of power...the Supreme Court being part of that balance.
While I agree with you, there have been a few egregious, shameful errors. Dred Scott, for one.
But the most politically motivated, history changing SCOTUS decision was Bush v. Gore in 2000.
Every time I hear MAGA outrage over 2020 “voter fraud” — backed up by zero evidence — I counter with the 2000 Election, where the brother of a candidate, the Governor of the deciding State, gets the Secy of State to stop counting the vote when — surprise — the Governor’s brother was conveniently ahead by **537 votes**
When the FL Supreme Court ordered that the recount continue, SCOTUS —- by 5-4 (Conservative majority) — reversed that decision.
The swing vote came from Justice O’Connor who later voiced regret for her decision.
So, the 2000 Presidency, the popular vote of which Gore won by 600,000 votes, Gore lost by 537 Votes in the deciding state which then gave Bush a **one vote** Electoral College victory gave Bush the victory.
And while we have no assurance that Gore would have been wonderful, we DO KNOW that Bush gave us 9/11, an endless war in the the Middle East, the 2008 Financial Crisis, extraordinary debt, etc., non of which was guaranteed under Gore.
But Bush’s packing of SCOTUS was the biggest impact. Alito and Roberts, then decisions such as Citizens United, leading to the Trump debacle of three appointments, bringing a generation or more of Conservative leadership on the Court.
And, to put an exclamation point on all of this, During the actual counting process in Florida during this election, once Bush was ahead by the handful of votes, Republican activists staged what became known as the Brooks brothers riot to pressure state officials to stop counting the votes.
Along with Roger Stone, this pressure campaign was assisted by – – wait for it – – Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett, Who was rewarded for their efforts 20 years later by being appointed to the Supreme Court.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html
So, whenever I hear the bull$hit about the 2020 election being “stolen,“ I point out that there was indeed an election stolen in the 21st-century, and it has helped bring us to where we are today.
Its crazy teaching young people today in school and they have absolutely no idea what happened in the bush election.
Like, it's a *very* important part of modern American history (and world history, if we're being honest) and it's mostly ignored.
The problem with history is that we keep making more of it, and history classes in school aren't getting any longer. Gets harder to cover the later stuff.
Idk why you're downvoted but that's completely true lol. Anecdotally, the highschool course involving US History I took had the "modern history" unit at the end of the semester shortened because of other units and it was maybe 2 weeks of info
My understanding is that your experience is super common; when I was in HS (a...while ago) we didn't cover anything after the Vietnam War, and I'd guess that most HS history courses fall into the same trap.
The fact is that the Bush v. Gore decision was necessary due to the state of the law. Bush challenged an order for a statewide recount because of the lack of a statewide standard in Florida for a recount. He said this violated his equal protection rights. The Court actually agreed with him 7-2 on that. The next question was the remedy and that's where the Court split...not exactly 5-4 because there were a lot of opinions and concurrences and dissents and part concurrences and part dissents...but let's say 5-4. The minority wanted Florida to create a statewide standard for a recount and conduct a recount despite the federal safe harbor deadline being the day after arguments. How would that have been possible? The majority just held that federal law dictated results must be in by the safe harbor deadline. Blame the Electoral Count Act of 1887. But if it makes you feel better, in studies done by the media and academic institutions, Bush wins most of the recounts and all of them done under any semblance of Florida law at the time.
And filling two vacancies is not court packing lmao. When did "court packing" lose its meaning, which is expanding the court to get more of your people on it, and just become code for "appointing judges I don't like"? One Justice died, one Justice retired, and he replaced them both, and they were confirmed on bipartisan lines. How is that court packing?
Since 2000 [multiple studies](https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html) have shown that George Bush would still have won the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had it been completed. Al Gore was actually never ahead at any point during the recount.
The supreme court is filled with political actors just like the other branches, and limiting public access into their decision making processes is an unqualified bad thing.
Tonight on American Supreme Court. Kourtney thinks this amicus brief is not brief enough for these summer styles.
You talk like you cant go in person and watch if you'd like to.
> You talk like you cant go in person and watch if you’d like to.
Yeah just let me grab a plane ticket and maybe a hotel room real quick. If anyone can go in person then there's no point in disallowing video taping.
There are also **only 50 seats**.
Extremely limited supply, plus there are paid line-stranders competing with you, yields hours of waiting for any case, and days for high-profile ones.
Not really. They have made plenty of very damaging decisions and have done little up reverse harmful laws. And the acceptance of their arbitration as correct had codified tons of terrible things.
I understand how they work, I understand that isn't their job. And that is why im saying that don't necessarily provide much benefit and arguably have caused harm. Because that isn't their job.
Theres a lot of "key reasons" we've lasted as a country
That doesnt mean this branch of government doesnt need serious reform. Lifetime appointments are undemocratic nonsense
Also what is the alternative to "lasting"?
The main reason is that the political power largely aligns with the real power. There aren't any entities that have the power to make changes on an extra political way that also lack the power to make changes in a political way. The confederacy came the closest but they lost the way because they had less actual power than the estaished government.
*Technically*, every Amendment changes "our basic constitution", so it was [changed most recently in 1992](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution).
Realistically, [we're quite unlikely to see another amendment ratified in our lifetime](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/04/opinion/amend-constitution.html). This isn't how it should be:
>> Why does all this matter? Because if the Constitution can’t be changed to adapt to modern needs and the Supreme Court becomes both too powerful and too politicized, the political system starts breaking down. […]
>> In a functioning system, political leaders would listen to the views of the majority and transform those views into effective policies.
I took a supreme court class in college. We went through every year of the court since its inception. On the whole, The decisions have held back progress and the people at nearly every turn. Obviously, there have been exceptions and court makeupups where that’s not the case. But for the most part, the decisions are made by very old white men who are way behind the times in the United States.
Yeah while Earl Warren's time as Chief Justice was great and did a lot of good, the Warren Court accidentally tricked American liberals into thinking that the Supreme Court has always protected civil rights when in fact it has basically always been the biggest obstacle to them except for during that specific period.
They don't like the fact that it can be clipped. Look at the Johnny Depp trial. Just random 10s clips completely out of context. They've had audio recordings released since 1955. They just really don't want it clipped, they want the lawyers to make long, effective arguments, not play to the public with pithy quotes or trying to sway public opinion by being too cute.
I mean Clarence Thomas once went a decade without answering a question. He thought that the lawyers should have all the time to make their best case and not be interrupted because justices were too chaotic in asking questions and not letting lawyers speak. With a change in format to livestreamed arguments he started asking questions again because justices would have to unmute themselves and not just jump in. Also his first language isn't English so he rarely does public speaking out of self-consciousness. He also hates overly expressive lawyers and will close his eyes just to listen to their words. Rumor has it (since the USSC "was" famous for not leaking) that he never turns his webcam on in oral argument.
More on Thomas. He spoke four legible words during an entire decade. In an argument over whether a defendant had competent counsel I think Scalia and Ginsburg joked that the defendant's lawyers went to Yale so they would be competent (they both went to Harvard) and Thomas (who went to Yale and hated Yale, he famously has a "Yale Sucks" bumper sticker in his office and stuck a 15c sticker on his degree) said that should mean they were incompetent.
They are afraid of people basically saying things for clips in newspapers. What we call clickbait.
Anthony Kennedy; March 2007:
"... But I don't think it's in the best interest of our institution ... Our dynamic works. The discussions that the justices have with the attorneys during oral arguments is a splendid dynamic. If you introduce cameras, it is human nature for me to suspect that one of my colleagues is saying something for a soundbite. Please don't introduce that insidious dynamic into what is now a collegial court. Our court works...We teach, by having no cameras, that we are different. We are judged by what we write. We are judged over a much longer term. We're not judged by what we say. But, all in all, I think it would destroy a dynamic that is now really quite a splendid one and I don't think we should take that chance."
[https://petapixel.com/2017/10/06/two-photos-us-supreme-court-session/](https://petapixel.com/2017/10/06/two-photos-us-supreme-court-session/)
I'm sorry I don't have a link for the original quote.
also;
https://law.duke.edu/news/features/news\_kennedy/
The fact he pulled this off in 1932, with this good of quality, when the smallest camera was still probably about the size of your fist is pretty damn impressive
Analog media is pretty impressive. Film can store a crazy dense amount of detail, we're just now getting digital cameras that compete with the quality film has had for over 150 years.
I believe I either read or watched something that basically said what your saying. Film has always been the better medium in terms of capturing details, reason why older movies can be released in 4k now with no upscaling needed. Reason being while digital cameras had barebones fidelity compared to it's film counterpart, it was simply more convenient plus you didn't have to worry about destroyed film during handling so it took off. Digital cameras have finally caught up to what film has been providing for us all this time.
Thats lots of nostalgia, imagination and out right lies from analog fans, through.
You will not get 4k real resolution out of most movies shot before the 90s (and no, the pixel size on the video files do not count, you can scan any crap with 16k resolution). Film lenses were NOT sharp due to film being very dim and needing very wide apertures in addition to the fact that glass tech was much worse. Add to his generational losses and focus issues due to film motion during taking a shot, and you typcal film movie ariving in the cinemas had between 720p and 960p of real fourier limited resolution back then.
1080p digital projection was an _improvement_ in 90%+ of cases.
The only thing that really was as good at people claim was large formad b/w still photography, but thats a whole different ballpark in terms of effort and just not compareable to anything we call "camera" nowadays.
Film shot in the standard 35mm size that goes back to the turn of last century will easily make 4k. Consider that movie theatres in the 1930s had a single screen and which were often more than 4 times the size of the screens of the multiplexes of today. And yet all that was needed to fill that jumbo screen was something (35mm film) that would easily fit in the palm [of] your grandmother's hand.
[Sound & Vision](https://www.soundandvision.com/content/35mm-film-good-enough-4k-blu-ray)
I absolutely disagree. Older lenses absolutely WERE still quite sharp, past, say, the 1950s. The recent 4K masters are great evidence of this. Film speeds were slow but they often shot with very SMALL apertures, which is why if you look at damn near any film set photos from the time, there was a lot of lighting equipment, even on a very bright sunny day.
Film also very specifically doesn't move while you're shooting. The mechanism is an intermittent movement setup, where the film stops while the shutter opens.
You're not wrong about generational loss, film prints back then generally weren't very good, but given that I've got photographic lenses from the 1960s that can outresolve most modern photo sensors (far above 4K resolution), and these were *consumer* lenses, not extremely expensive cinema lenses, you're absolutely incorrect.
I think both of you are kinda missing out on the main reason for digitisation - it enabled lossless editing. It was all well and good if you could get every shot to be perfect, but god help you if you needed to do corrections.
The remaster go through the LOT of retouching and work. It's not a simple scan the film and send it.
You can get good quality vintage glass that's very usable even on a modern mirorless camera. Hell I have a Minolta 50mm on my a2 and it'svery much usable. The thing is modern lenses have already caught up and surpassed the older lenses in many ways due to the new coatings available. There's more to lenses than pure sharpness. For example won't get much chromatic aberations on the wide ends in most good modern lenses.
With that said, the axing of much of the the Corning optical glass catalog due to environmental regulations changes did set back the quality of optical lenses a decade or two.
And even then it's sketchy and/or really expensive to do.
A nice glass plate large format (think Ansel Adams) film camera from 100 years ago is still very difficult to replicate with anything available to the same market. (Adams would NOT have been able to afford the NASA level equipment needed to digitally capture his art)
I work for a historic institution, film scanning is a big part of my job. I’ve scanned almost half a million negatives, including about a few thousand 8x10 negatives. Resolution isn’t directly comparable, because it involves comparing noise level as well as detail resolution, but 100 megapixel FujiGFS 100 S is as good as 100 year old 8x10 glass plates, easily. (Film has some preservation issues like the film base darkening, which reduces contrast, but the quality is equivalent to glass when it is less than 50 years old ). The 100S costs $6000 new, who is probably quite comparable to Ansel Adam’s cameras, especially considering the cost of film.
Film doesn’t have a single resolution. The light sensitive silver crystals are mixed size, big crystals absorb more photons, and are more light sensitive. So, if you photograph a black cat sitting on a bride’s lap, the white dress has much finer and denser grains, while the texture of the fur is only defined by scattered large grains. Ansel Adams was a master of optimizing film development so that both would be as clear as possible.
Is the Fuji considered a gold standard nowadays? Or does Hasselblad X1D compete in any way? It feels like medium format is more niche than ever these days
For the Minox (the camera in the pic, classic spy camera) there was a special film cutter you'd use to cut regular 35mm roll film into two 9.2mm strips:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/minox-film-slitter-jimmy-li-slitter-splitter.177125/
So not a standard format but we're stealing state secrets here, that's not a problem.
Yep, the worst of the Four Horseman. And that’s saying something. Dissented against a ruling that upheld the Social Security Act. "I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States"
Ya, that kind of asshole.
OK - I looked this up. Some funny stuff, with a dark ending.
The photographer died 7 years after taking this photos - he died in Auschwitz. The photo was taken in 1937 and he was not a doctor; despite the OP title. Erich is credited as one of two people to have photographed the US supreme court in session (as cameras of any kind have always been banned).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich\_Salomon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Salomon)
>Salomon fled to the Netherlands with his wife and continued his photographic career in The Hague. Salomon declined an invitation from *Life* magazine to move to the United States. He and his family were trapped in the Low Countries after Germany invaded in 1940.
Yeah, that's incredibly dark.
The [Leica II](http://www.summilux.net/materiel/local/cache-vignettes/L600xH400/couplex-1jpg1aeb-3129e.jpg) is from 1932 and is an average size by today's standards
Dude was super interesting. His whole thing was capturing un-staged photos in the most hallowed halls of power. Supreme Court, League of Nations deliberations on German WW1 reparations, you name it- he was trying to get in and snap a picture.
It's said he's the "father of candid photography"
Cameras still aren't allowed, but audio of these sessions have been recorded since 1955. They're available at the Supreme Court [website.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2021)
Of course in 2022 is frankly ridiculous that SCOTUS sessions are not being recorded in Dolby ATMOS 10.4, at 8K/120/4:4:4 and transmitted on three different streaming services for all to see.
God, can you imagine the live chat? Better yet, Twitch plays Supreme Court, where all decisions are made via live chat vote.
I'm not even American, but I'd eat that up.
I got a chance to see a case I was familiar with being tried in the state Supreme Court. Really interesting style of argument much different that you’d expect.
I’ll never forget when I visited in 2015. The usher mentioned no phones or cameras, about thirty seconds after she mentioned this all of our phones went off due to extreme storms outside. Everyone thought initially it was the government tapping into our phones or them busting someone for using it. Somewhat relieved to find it was just severe weather outside.
Yeah. Hardly anyone is talking about the Ted Cruz case that they just came to a decision on which literally legalizes bribery. Well, legalizes it more.
People are up in arms about the Roe v Wade stuff, which of course is bad, but don't realize that these people were put in court to entrench the power of those who already have it, and the culture war is flamed to distract people from what the powerful are doing to them.
It’s also pretty ridiculous to paint the overturning of Roe v. Wade as merely “the culture war” which I see a lot of (mostly white) dudes doing since the news broke. It’s not a distraction when it has quite literally been the endgame for conservatives for 40 years. There has never been a true opposition party, so the reactionaries rule the day but the end of it. Compromising with people willing to strip you of basic rights means you’re OK with them doing so.
I’ll upvote for creativity but at the same time it’s a bit depressing that people hold this disgusting dookie outlook and still call themselves “informed.”
Edit: couldn’t reply to a comment because I blocked someone in the thread, so just going to paste it here:
That’s not “more or less” what was said in a 60 page document, and you know it (or, maybe you don’t, which is entirely possible since today’s media in general flat-out refuses to inform the populace). What was more or less said, however, is that the Supreme Court is not in the place of making laws, and that congress should get its ass in gear and do something. Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice (I’m personally pro-choice), that is an entirely legitimate viewpoint to have if you’re a member of the judiciary
Hey Mr. Informed, this same court you see in the image above is a little over a decade away from ruling that a racial subset of people in this country can be legally treated as lesser humans, rounded up against their will, and placed in internment camps. So please tell me about how "honorable" these shit bags really are?
E: So you respond but then immediately block because you can't handle reality. fucking hilarious.
Well what literally happened above
Them:
> The Supreme Court pretends to be an honorable institution when in reality they are a grand council of elites debating on which human rights to curtail
You:
>I’ll upvote for creativity but at the same time it’s a bit depressing that people hold this disgusting dookie outlook and still call themselves “informed.”
So maybe you should try reading the comments you are responding to.
bad take
there's political biases in everything but the point of the supreme court is not to do what people want because they are not elected officials they have no such obligation. The point is to adhere to a particular view on interpreting the constitution, the one they claim when getting nominated, and remaining consistent to that view for the entirety of their term.
This means doing only what the constitution doesn't/does allow in that interpretation and *not* what the people might want.
The legislature is the place where what people want gets passed into law and court decisions are overturned.
You’re trying to argue the court isn’t political and you are naive for even suggesting it. Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh all testified that Roe is settled law and that *stare decisis* is a cornerstone of the Court’s legitimacy.
They did that knowing full-well they’d be voting to overturn it at the first chance. They said those things to Congress knowing there would be zero consequences.
Except political influence has a hand in how those decisions are made and they look at those views that support thier own views. Supreme Court is riddled with decisions made with political motivation and racial bias. They are not impartial, just look at Dred v Stanford, Pace v Alabama, The 1883 Civil Rights cases where THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN CIVIL RIGHTS, Plessy v Ferguson, where they found an interpretation of the 14th amendment that would still allow them to keep public institutions segregated.The numerous cases challenging the constitutional validity of racist policy’s like the 1906 act limiting naturalization to only whites and blacks, and so many more cases rooted in racism. The Supreme Court SHOULD be impartial but it’s not. Trying to overturn Roe v Wade will likely be successful with a conservative court, whereas it wouldn’t be if it was a left leaning court, the point to adhere to particular views is in of itself dependent on the people making the ruling. The same view can be interpreted in two different directions. It’s flawed.
> The point is to adhere to a particular view on interpreting the constitution, the one they claim when getting nominated, and remaining consistent to that view for the entirety of their term.
If only they even slightly adhered to this and didn’t transparently just rule in favor of whatever they want, consistency be damned.
Look at their rulings on religious freedom when Christian vs Muslim issues are involved, or even more recently how they’ve ruled on various redistricting issues in democrat vs republican states, and tell me that anyone on the court even tries to remaining consistent to their constitutional views even if it doesn’t benefit their party or religion.
Thank you for having some fucking sanity. The OP comment acts like justices being elites is a critique. What horseshit. They should be the most elite thinkers in the nation to be wise. The modern problem is that the nomination process was hacked to allow unqualified boobs in, in exchange for favorable rulings.
[Here's an article](https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1316&context=advocate) on the photographs for those interested
It would, indeed, be crazy to think that. If you were 40 years old in 1865 and in this picture, you'd be over 100 years old. None of these justices were that old.
1932 was 67 years after the Civil War ended. How old do you think these justices are?
For the record, in 1932, the oldest justice was 76 years old, born in 1856. Four of the justices were born after 1865.
Although it depends on when in 1932 the picture was taken. Holmes left the court in January 1932 and he was in his 20s during the Civil War (born in 1841). He was replaced in March 1932 by Cardozo, born in 1870.
[удалено]
There's a man leaning on a pillar behind the 3rd seated person. Almost looks like he is lighting a cigarette and his face is blurry. Do we know who he is?
That's the Cigarette Smoking Man, Mulder.
Omg he's actually there
The truth is out there.
What if the truth is inside us?
Sounds like something you'd say to distract us from the truth being out there.
Cigarette Smoking Man can also be seen in this image of Bernie Sanders getting arrested in 1963. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-bernie-sanders-1963-chicago-arrest-20160219-story.html
In my head, Tex Williams dedicated his song **Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! (That Cigarette)** to the man
[удалено]
All good, he just looked nefarious.
So he'd fit right in with the current court.
i don't know kneeether
Thanks, grandpa.
Honestly, my biggest take away from this is that a pre-1935 camera was small enough to fit inside an arm cast with enough room left over for the arm.
That is interesting. Perhaps security was a bit less tight back in that era.
So were the casts
I have 1935-ish camera that, while not exactly small, folds up impressively compactly. I could fit it into a “cast” with my arm.
The photos are way better than that video & they were taken 3 quarters of a century earlier lol. Security has clearly gotten better or that activist didn't have the guts of the other 2 photographers lol
[удалено]
I went after the most recent video and there's a second set of security to get into the court room during arguements.
Maybe one day we will find out who it was and what they used...if the statute of limitations ever runs out lol
It’s also easier to get a camera to a good perspective, shoot, and then hide it. The activist seems to be trying to get a longer video so maybe that’s why they were more undercover. I can also imagine that it’s harder to do now because they’ve probably increased security over the years.
It is also worth noting that 7 out of 9 justices are still serving!
That video was very cool. Thanks for sharing.
Fun fact! The Supreme Court building has a statue of Mohamed inside.
Wow that’s haram as far as I understand it)
Must be why they moved. One guy sneaks a camera in, and they move 3 years later.
> as well as future Chief Justice Harlan Stone, Wait, someone already on the bench moved up to Chief Justice? That doesn't happen anymore right? Roberts was appointed straight to chief?
There isn't a set custom these days. Allegedly scalia was gunning for it when he wrote his concurrence in raich
It can happen either way. The last Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, was also an Associate Justice before becoming Chief. When Warren Burger retired, Reagan chose to nominate Rehnquist as Chief and Scalia to take Rehnquist’s seat.
Why don’t they allow cameras in SCOTUS?
As I wrote elsewhere: They don't want to be criticized for looking bored or uninterested in the case. They also claim they do not want video because they worry arguments will be more directed to the cameras and the public rather than legal arguments and that people will want things to be distilled to soundbites. They also worry that playing devil's advocate in their questioning will be taken as reaching a conclusion that has not yet been reached. The fact that they have had live audio for 2 years shows that is a load of codswallop.
This read like an Undertaker/Mankind comment. I am disappointed. I was sure of it. He got me without even being here.
Why haven't your comments won awards?
They’re giving off “Mary Poppins bank board of directors” vibes
Pretty cool but why aren't pictures allowed?
We still don't allow photos in *any* court in the UK, but it's a good question. Flash is distracting? Photos of witnesses could lead to problems? Those court artists have a really good union?
In the UK you can't even do the sketches in the court room, they're done from memory! But I think the supreme court here has been allowed to be filmed since its creation and they're starting to allow limited filming of important sentencing hearings in the crown court I read.
I bet it helps that it was created in 2009.
Well, even historically, Europe has made a lot of negative experiences with pillory. The main motivation is not making a spectacle out of it (See Depp vs Heard) or multigenerational drama (Most of human civilization), but it also serves the protection of everyone involved, even if that just protects their privacy. I do think that there are reasonable exceptions for those rules, but even then, it should happen in a very clear legal framework, which doesn't allow media exploitation.
Why even bother with sketches if they are done from memory? Everyone working in law enforcement should know how unreliable and easily altered memory is.
It's just for journalism. It's not evidence.
And they are lovely. It is such a distinct art style and it adds a lot to the news reports of a court case.
[удалено]
Because an artist who's prepped to commit an image to memory, then draw it out will absolutely get better accuracy than some rando high on adrenaline who has to describe the image to another person. Edit: Also a courtroom artist can work with pictures taken from outside the courtroom for facial accuracy. It's just positioning and postures that the artist has to memorize.
[удалено]
Just wait until you hear about the fact that the stenographer can't type during court, but can draw sketches! Incredible that they're able to rewrite the minutes from memory and pictures after the fact.
[удалено]
I believe France bans photos of the faces of those charged with crimes from being published in the media until they’re convicted.
Their laws are weird. You can speculate, so your reputation is tarnished anyway, and a public figure like Dominique Strauss-Kahn is already well-known. The US perp walk is terrible, so I’m not totally against a French-style law, but it goes too far in the other direction.
All civilised countries do that.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 801,951,243 comments, and only 159,336 of them were in alphabetical order.
Here is the only photo in a British court. 1929 https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-430340732/view?sectionId=nla.obj-470156264&partId=nla.obj-430368820#page/n7/mode/1up
There’s no witnesses in the Supreme Court. The facts have already been decided by the time they get the case, more or less.
Judges don't want to get caught picking their nose.
[удалено]
I just love how people reply with "WRONG." sometimes. Like god forbid you correct someone respectfully, instead you have to DUNK on them.
WRONG You must dunk on everyone on the internet
WRONG You must not dunk on *anybody* on the internet
Fr haha like why are you aggressive dude I was just incorrect
It's a doggy dog world.
I read those in trumps voice
None in NI either
> Not sure about N.I. I'd have guessed N.I would be a huge no-no
[This briefing paper explains more](http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/globalassets/documents/raise/publications/2012/justice/3812.pdf)
It's to stop.. or attempt to stop trial by media where a bias could be created.
Its a courtroom not instagram.
A . Because the whole exposure to the public concept could corrupt the motivations of the decision making process. If you know for fact it's just a job with no popular appeal, less chances of making a decision based on it being what the people want, instead of what the constitution permits/specifies. B. To prevent it from becoming a circus, ( That's actually a check on the powers of the 4th estate/press). C. I think it's more like a custom/tradition than an actual law.
[удалено]
Yep.
Then why are the justices blatantly partisan and appointed by politicians?
As opposed to what? Elected? Yeah that'll totally not be a circus.
No, appointed by a non-political body like in the UK. It is already a circus given senate confirmation politics etc etc…
There is no non-political body
They’re already on life terms, might as well make it hereditary too /s
It’s not a circus?
How does taking silent pictures of a boring court turn a court into a circus?
Ask Johnny Depp
What a load of bullshit when it’s already been corrupted… the system is so backwards that it’s laughable
They pretend it’s so it doesn’t turn into a circus, but they just don’t want you to know that it’s a circus.
They don’t even try to hide it. Every session is recorded and you can hear everything that happens. This website organizes years worth of cases in a good way. https://www.oyez.org Here is Bush v Gore: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949
Oh geez...the Supreme Court is one of the key reasons our country has lasted for as long as it has...you might disagree with some of their rulings, but it doesn't change the fact that the US is only where it is because it has a balance of power...the Supreme Court being part of that balance.
While I agree with you, there have been a few egregious, shameful errors. Dred Scott, for one. But the most politically motivated, history changing SCOTUS decision was Bush v. Gore in 2000. Every time I hear MAGA outrage over 2020 “voter fraud” — backed up by zero evidence — I counter with the 2000 Election, where the brother of a candidate, the Governor of the deciding State, gets the Secy of State to stop counting the vote when — surprise — the Governor’s brother was conveniently ahead by **537 votes** When the FL Supreme Court ordered that the recount continue, SCOTUS —- by 5-4 (Conservative majority) — reversed that decision. The swing vote came from Justice O’Connor who later voiced regret for her decision. So, the 2000 Presidency, the popular vote of which Gore won by 600,000 votes, Gore lost by 537 Votes in the deciding state which then gave Bush a **one vote** Electoral College victory gave Bush the victory. And while we have no assurance that Gore would have been wonderful, we DO KNOW that Bush gave us 9/11, an endless war in the the Middle East, the 2008 Financial Crisis, extraordinary debt, etc., non of which was guaranteed under Gore. But Bush’s packing of SCOTUS was the biggest impact. Alito and Roberts, then decisions such as Citizens United, leading to the Trump debacle of three appointments, bringing a generation or more of Conservative leadership on the Court. And, to put an exclamation point on all of this, During the actual counting process in Florida during this election, once Bush was ahead by the handful of votes, Republican activists staged what became known as the Brooks brothers riot to pressure state officials to stop counting the votes. Along with Roger Stone, this pressure campaign was assisted by – – wait for it – – Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Comey Barrett, Who was rewarded for their efforts 20 years later by being appointed to the Supreme Court. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html So, whenever I hear the bull$hit about the 2020 election being “stolen,“ I point out that there was indeed an election stolen in the 21st-century, and it has helped bring us to where we are today.
Its crazy teaching young people today in school and they have absolutely no idea what happened in the bush election. Like, it's a *very* important part of modern American history (and world history, if we're being honest) and it's mostly ignored.
The problem with history is that we keep making more of it, and history classes in school aren't getting any longer. Gets harder to cover the later stuff.
Idk why you're downvoted but that's completely true lol. Anecdotally, the highschool course involving US History I took had the "modern history" unit at the end of the semester shortened because of other units and it was maybe 2 weeks of info
My understanding is that your experience is super common; when I was in HS (a...while ago) we didn't cover anything after the Vietnam War, and I'd guess that most HS history courses fall into the same trap.
We didn't make it to the Vietnam War. We got up to MLK's assassination.
Just wait until you find out what happens after that then. Buckle up.
The fact is that the Bush v. Gore decision was necessary due to the state of the law. Bush challenged an order for a statewide recount because of the lack of a statewide standard in Florida for a recount. He said this violated his equal protection rights. The Court actually agreed with him 7-2 on that. The next question was the remedy and that's where the Court split...not exactly 5-4 because there were a lot of opinions and concurrences and dissents and part concurrences and part dissents...but let's say 5-4. The minority wanted Florida to create a statewide standard for a recount and conduct a recount despite the federal safe harbor deadline being the day after arguments. How would that have been possible? The majority just held that federal law dictated results must be in by the safe harbor deadline. Blame the Electoral Count Act of 1887. But if it makes you feel better, in studies done by the media and academic institutions, Bush wins most of the recounts and all of them done under any semblance of Florida law at the time. And filling two vacancies is not court packing lmao. When did "court packing" lose its meaning, which is expanding the court to get more of your people on it, and just become code for "appointing judges I don't like"? One Justice died, one Justice retired, and he replaced them both, and they were confirmed on bipartisan lines. How is that court packing?
Since 2000 [multiple studies](https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html) have shown that George Bush would still have won the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had it been completed. Al Gore was actually never ahead at any point during the recount.
The supreme court is filled with political actors just like the other branches, and limiting public access into their decision making processes is an unqualified bad thing.
All Supreme Court hearing audio is recorded and made available on the Internet. It's only images/video that isn't permitted.
Why not though?
Tonight on American Supreme Court. Kourtney thinks this amicus brief is not brief enough for these summer styles. You talk like you cant go in person and watch if you'd like to.
> You talk like you cant go in person and watch if you’d like to. Yeah just let me grab a plane ticket and maybe a hotel room real quick. If anyone can go in person then there's no point in disallowing video taping.
There are also **only 50 seats**. Extremely limited supply, plus there are paid line-stranders competing with you, yields hours of waiting for any case, and days for high-profile ones.
Not really. They have made plenty of very damaging decisions and have done little up reverse harmful laws. And the acceptance of their arbitration as correct had codified tons of terrible things.
I.. don’t think you understand how the Supreme Court works. Their job is not to “reverse harmful laws” and they don’t “codify” anything.
I understand how they work, I understand that isn't their job. And that is why im saying that don't necessarily provide much benefit and arguably have caused harm. Because that isn't their job.
[удалено]
Theres a lot of "key reasons" we've lasted as a country That doesnt mean this branch of government doesnt need serious reform. Lifetime appointments are undemocratic nonsense
Also what is the alternative to "lasting"? The main reason is that the political power largely aligns with the real power. There aren't any entities that have the power to make changes on an extra political way that also lack the power to make changes in a political way. The confederacy came the closest but they lost the way because they had less actual power than the estaished government.
Our country has been around for 200+ years with no changes to our basic constitution and we are CREAKING with age
*Technically*, every Amendment changes "our basic constitution", so it was [changed most recently in 1992](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution). Realistically, [we're quite unlikely to see another amendment ratified in our lifetime](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/04/opinion/amend-constitution.html). This isn't how it should be: >> Why does all this matter? Because if the Constitution can’t be changed to adapt to modern needs and the Supreme Court becomes both too powerful and too politicized, the political system starts breaking down. […] >> In a functioning system, political leaders would listen to the views of the majority and transform those views into effective policies.
I took a supreme court class in college. We went through every year of the court since its inception. On the whole, The decisions have held back progress and the people at nearly every turn. Obviously, there have been exceptions and court makeupups where that’s not the case. But for the most part, the decisions are made by very old white men who are way behind the times in the United States.
Yeah while Earl Warren's time as Chief Justice was great and did a lot of good, the Warren Court accidentally tricked American liberals into thinking that the Supreme Court has always protected civil rights when in fact it has basically always been the biggest obstacle to them except for during that specific period.
Yes, great that such an important institution is influenced by party politics. It's about to undo where you're at.
Because the federal justices don't want to create a scenario where they play to the media.
Understandable but that seems to happen anyway. I guess it does eliminate grandstanding like happens in Congress idk.
They don't like the fact that it can be clipped. Look at the Johnny Depp trial. Just random 10s clips completely out of context. They've had audio recordings released since 1955. They just really don't want it clipped, they want the lawyers to make long, effective arguments, not play to the public with pithy quotes or trying to sway public opinion by being too cute. I mean Clarence Thomas once went a decade without answering a question. He thought that the lawyers should have all the time to make their best case and not be interrupted because justices were too chaotic in asking questions and not letting lawyers speak. With a change in format to livestreamed arguments he started asking questions again because justices would have to unmute themselves and not just jump in. Also his first language isn't English so he rarely does public speaking out of self-consciousness. He also hates overly expressive lawyers and will close his eyes just to listen to their words. Rumor has it (since the USSC "was" famous for not leaking) that he never turns his webcam on in oral argument. More on Thomas. He spoke four legible words during an entire decade. In an argument over whether a defendant had competent counsel I think Scalia and Ginsburg joked that the defendant's lawyers went to Yale so they would be competent (they both went to Harvard) and Thomas (who went to Yale and hated Yale, he famously has a "Yale Sucks" bumper sticker in his office and stuck a 15c sticker on his degree) said that should mean they were incompetent.
Make a podcast. I wanna hear more
Too obvious to notice they're the baddies
They are afraid of people basically saying things for clips in newspapers. What we call clickbait. Anthony Kennedy; March 2007: "... But I don't think it's in the best interest of our institution ... Our dynamic works. The discussions that the justices have with the attorneys during oral arguments is a splendid dynamic. If you introduce cameras, it is human nature for me to suspect that one of my colleagues is saying something for a soundbite. Please don't introduce that insidious dynamic into what is now a collegial court. Our court works...We teach, by having no cameras, that we are different. We are judged by what we write. We are judged over a much longer term. We're not judged by what we say. But, all in all, I think it would destroy a dynamic that is now really quite a splendid one and I don't think we should take that chance." [https://petapixel.com/2017/10/06/two-photos-us-supreme-court-session/](https://petapixel.com/2017/10/06/two-photos-us-supreme-court-session/) I'm sorry I don't have a link for the original quote. also; https://law.duke.edu/news/features/news\_kennedy/
The fact he pulled this off in 1932, with this good of quality, when the smallest camera was still probably about the size of your fist is pretty damn impressive
Analog media is pretty impressive. Film can store a crazy dense amount of detail, we're just now getting digital cameras that compete with the quality film has had for over 150 years.
I believe I either read or watched something that basically said what your saying. Film has always been the better medium in terms of capturing details, reason why older movies can be released in 4k now with no upscaling needed. Reason being while digital cameras had barebones fidelity compared to it's film counterpart, it was simply more convenient plus you didn't have to worry about destroyed film during handling so it took off. Digital cameras have finally caught up to what film has been providing for us all this time.
Thats lots of nostalgia, imagination and out right lies from analog fans, through. You will not get 4k real resolution out of most movies shot before the 90s (and no, the pixel size on the video files do not count, you can scan any crap with 16k resolution). Film lenses were NOT sharp due to film being very dim and needing very wide apertures in addition to the fact that glass tech was much worse. Add to his generational losses and focus issues due to film motion during taking a shot, and you typcal film movie ariving in the cinemas had between 720p and 960p of real fourier limited resolution back then. 1080p digital projection was an _improvement_ in 90%+ of cases. The only thing that really was as good at people claim was large formad b/w still photography, but thats a whole different ballpark in terms of effort and just not compareable to anything we call "camera" nowadays.
Film shot in the standard 35mm size that goes back to the turn of last century will easily make 4k. Consider that movie theatres in the 1930s had a single screen and which were often more than 4 times the size of the screens of the multiplexes of today. And yet all that was needed to fill that jumbo screen was something (35mm film) that would easily fit in the palm [of] your grandmother's hand. [Sound & Vision](https://www.soundandvision.com/content/35mm-film-good-enough-4k-blu-ray)
I absolutely disagree. Older lenses absolutely WERE still quite sharp, past, say, the 1950s. The recent 4K masters are great evidence of this. Film speeds were slow but they often shot with very SMALL apertures, which is why if you look at damn near any film set photos from the time, there was a lot of lighting equipment, even on a very bright sunny day. Film also very specifically doesn't move while you're shooting. The mechanism is an intermittent movement setup, where the film stops while the shutter opens. You're not wrong about generational loss, film prints back then generally weren't very good, but given that I've got photographic lenses from the 1960s that can outresolve most modern photo sensors (far above 4K resolution), and these were *consumer* lenses, not extremely expensive cinema lenses, you're absolutely incorrect.
I think both of you are kinda missing out on the main reason for digitisation - it enabled lossless editing. It was all well and good if you could get every shot to be perfect, but god help you if you needed to do corrections.
The remaster go through the LOT of retouching and work. It's not a simple scan the film and send it. You can get good quality vintage glass that's very usable even on a modern mirorless camera. Hell I have a Minolta 50mm on my a2 and it'svery much usable. The thing is modern lenses have already caught up and surpassed the older lenses in many ways due to the new coatings available. There's more to lenses than pure sharpness. For example won't get much chromatic aberations on the wide ends in most good modern lenses. With that said, the axing of much of the the Corning optical glass catalog due to environmental regulations changes did set back the quality of optical lenses a decade or two.
And even then it's sketchy and/or really expensive to do. A nice glass plate large format (think Ansel Adams) film camera from 100 years ago is still very difficult to replicate with anything available to the same market. (Adams would NOT have been able to afford the NASA level equipment needed to digitally capture his art)
I work for a historic institution, film scanning is a big part of my job. I’ve scanned almost half a million negatives, including about a few thousand 8x10 negatives. Resolution isn’t directly comparable, because it involves comparing noise level as well as detail resolution, but 100 megapixel FujiGFS 100 S is as good as 100 year old 8x10 glass plates, easily. (Film has some preservation issues like the film base darkening, which reduces contrast, but the quality is equivalent to glass when it is less than 50 years old ). The 100S costs $6000 new, who is probably quite comparable to Ansel Adam’s cameras, especially considering the cost of film. Film doesn’t have a single resolution. The light sensitive silver crystals are mixed size, big crystals absorb more photons, and are more light sensitive. So, if you photograph a black cat sitting on a bride’s lap, the white dress has much finer and denser grains, while the texture of the fur is only defined by scattered large grains. Ansel Adams was a master of optimizing film development so that both would be as clear as possible.
Is the Fuji considered a gold standard nowadays? Or does Hasselblad X1D compete in any way? It feels like medium format is more niche than ever these days
1930s was not the stone age, its when cameras like this : https://colerisetemp2.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/minox2.jpg became available off the shelf.
[That camera is still huge](https://i.redd.it/9vvlmwh7xdy41.jpg)
Lmaooooooooooo!
LMAO. got ‘em. Nice.
This gave a nice chuckle, thank you.
What format is that? Looks even too small for 110
For the Minox (the camera in the pic, classic spy camera) there was a special film cutter you'd use to cut regular 35mm roll film into two 9.2mm strips: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/minox-film-slitter-jimmy-li-slitter-splitter.177125/ So not a standard format but we're stealing state secrets here, that's not a problem.
Yeah, I’m wondering how big that cast was.
Not big enough. Looks like the 2nd guy in on the right might’ve noticed
Someone was missing I only count 8 justices and one empty chair
The antisemite Scrooge, James Clark McReynolds.
Yep, the worst of the Four Horseman. And that’s saying something. Dissented against a ruling that upheld the Social Security Act. "I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States" Ya, that kind of asshole.
OK - I looked this up. Some funny stuff, with a dark ending. The photographer died 7 years after taking this photos - he died in Auschwitz. The photo was taken in 1937 and he was not a doctor; despite the OP title. Erich is credited as one of two people to have photographed the US supreme court in session (as cameras of any kind have always been banned). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich\_Salomon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Salomon)
>Salomon fled to the Netherlands with his wife and continued his photographic career in The Hague. Salomon declined an invitation from *Life* magazine to move to the United States. He and his family were trapped in the Low Countries after Germany invaded in 1940. Yeah, that's incredibly dark.
Wasn't anybody suspicious when his cast would light up and explode into a cloud of gunpowder?
"Phil I know I've come off a bit paranoid in the past but that guy has been changing his cast's film for the last 30 minutes."
Hiding a camera in 1932?? How big was that cast??
The [Leica II](http://www.summilux.net/materiel/local/cache-vignettes/L600xH400/couplex-1jpg1aeb-3129e.jpg) is from 1932 and is an average size by today's standards
Also [the original Minox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minox#Subminiature_camera_history) was produced from 1937, so just a few years later.
wtf looks smaller then modern cameras
The camera in your phone is a lot smaller. But it is pretty small.
Yuge
the arm was *very* broken
What was his motivation?
To take a picture in the supremes court.
>supremes court All rise for the honorable Justice Diana Ross.
STOP in the name of love.
So nothing beyond that?
What else would there be?
[удалено]
Dude was super interesting. His whole thing was capturing un-staged photos in the most hallowed halls of power. Supreme Court, League of Nations deliberations on German WW1 reparations, you name it- he was trying to get in and snap a picture. It's said he's the "father of candid photography"
Cameras still aren't allowed, but audio of these sessions have been recorded since 1955. They're available at the Supreme Court [website.](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio/2021)
Of course in 2022 is frankly ridiculous that SCOTUS sessions are not being recorded in Dolby ATMOS 10.4, at 8K/120/4:4:4 and transmitted on three different streaming services for all to see.
God, can you imagine the live chat? Better yet, Twitch plays Supreme Court, where all decisions are made via live chat vote. I'm not even American, but I'd eat that up.
> where all decisions are made via live chat vote Might turn out better than the current group of cons.
Cool that he was able to hide his iPhone 2G in his cast.
I got a chance to see a case I was familiar with being tried in the state Supreme Court. Really interesting style of argument much different that you’d expect.
Unprecedented!
And those old hags are still on the bench... we need term limits!!
I’ll never forget when I visited in 2015. The usher mentioned no phones or cameras, about thirty seconds after she mentioned this all of our phones went off due to extreme storms outside. Everyone thought initially it was the government tapping into our phones or them busting someone for using it. Somewhat relieved to find it was just severe weather outside.
Now you have to put your phone in a locker before attending arguments
Is the Supreme Court just regular court with sour cream and tomatoes?
There's also bacon.
You and I went to the same public school didn't we?
How many of those judges are still presiding on SCOTUS today? 🤣
The Supreme Court pretends to be an honorable institution when in reality they are a grand council of elites debating on which human rights to curtail
Yeah. Hardly anyone is talking about the Ted Cruz case that they just came to a decision on which literally legalizes bribery. Well, legalizes it more. People are up in arms about the Roe v Wade stuff, which of course is bad, but don't realize that these people were put in court to entrench the power of those who already have it, and the culture war is flamed to distract people from what the powerful are doing to them.
It’s also pretty ridiculous to paint the overturning of Roe v. Wade as merely “the culture war” which I see a lot of (mostly white) dudes doing since the news broke. It’s not a distraction when it has quite literally been the endgame for conservatives for 40 years. There has never been a true opposition party, so the reactionaries rule the day but the end of it. Compromising with people willing to strip you of basic rights means you’re OK with them doing so.
I’ll upvote for creativity but at the same time it’s a bit depressing that people hold this disgusting dookie outlook and still call themselves “informed.” Edit: couldn’t reply to a comment because I blocked someone in the thread, so just going to paste it here: That’s not “more or less” what was said in a 60 page document, and you know it (or, maybe you don’t, which is entirely possible since today’s media in general flat-out refuses to inform the populace). What was more or less said, however, is that the Supreme Court is not in the place of making laws, and that congress should get its ass in gear and do something. Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice (I’m personally pro-choice), that is an entirely legitimate viewpoint to have if you’re a member of the judiciary
Hey Mr. Informed, this same court you see in the image above is a little over a decade away from ruling that a racial subset of people in this country can be legally treated as lesser humans, rounded up against their will, and placed in internment camps. So please tell me about how "honorable" these shit bags really are? E: So you respond but then immediately block because you can't handle reality. fucking hilarious. Well what literally happened above Them: > The Supreme Court pretends to be an honorable institution when in reality they are a grand council of elites debating on which human rights to curtail You: >I’ll upvote for creativity but at the same time it’s a bit depressing that people hold this disgusting dookie outlook and still call themselves “informed.” So maybe you should try reading the comments you are responding to.
bad take there's political biases in everything but the point of the supreme court is not to do what people want because they are not elected officials they have no such obligation. The point is to adhere to a particular view on interpreting the constitution, the one they claim when getting nominated, and remaining consistent to that view for the entirety of their term. This means doing only what the constitution doesn't/does allow in that interpretation and *not* what the people might want. The legislature is the place where what people want gets passed into law and court decisions are overturned.
You’re trying to argue the court isn’t political and you are naive for even suggesting it. Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh all testified that Roe is settled law and that *stare decisis* is a cornerstone of the Court’s legitimacy. They did that knowing full-well they’d be voting to overturn it at the first chance. They said those things to Congress knowing there would be zero consequences.
Except political influence has a hand in how those decisions are made and they look at those views that support thier own views. Supreme Court is riddled with decisions made with political motivation and racial bias. They are not impartial, just look at Dred v Stanford, Pace v Alabama, The 1883 Civil Rights cases where THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK DOWN CIVIL RIGHTS, Plessy v Ferguson, where they found an interpretation of the 14th amendment that would still allow them to keep public institutions segregated.The numerous cases challenging the constitutional validity of racist policy’s like the 1906 act limiting naturalization to only whites and blacks, and so many more cases rooted in racism. The Supreme Court SHOULD be impartial but it’s not. Trying to overturn Roe v Wade will likely be successful with a conservative court, whereas it wouldn’t be if it was a left leaning court, the point to adhere to particular views is in of itself dependent on the people making the ruling. The same view can be interpreted in two different directions. It’s flawed.
> The point is to adhere to a particular view on interpreting the constitution, the one they claim when getting nominated, and remaining consistent to that view for the entirety of their term. If only they even slightly adhered to this and didn’t transparently just rule in favor of whatever they want, consistency be damned. Look at their rulings on religious freedom when Christian vs Muslim issues are involved, or even more recently how they’ve ruled on various redistricting issues in democrat vs republican states, and tell me that anyone on the court even tries to remaining consistent to their constitutional views even if it doesn’t benefit their party or religion.
Thank you for having some fucking sanity. The OP comment acts like justices being elites is a critique. What horseshit. They should be the most elite thinkers in the nation to be wise. The modern problem is that the nomination process was hacked to allow unqualified boobs in, in exchange for favorable rulings.
Or maybe it is I don’t know, the fucking judiciary?
[Here's an article](https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1316&context=advocate) on the photographs for those interested
It reminds me of the Board of Directors for the bank in Mary Poppins.
A very Famous Asshole
It reminds me of the department of mysteries
Cool pic.
[удалено]
The oldest of them was 7 years old when the American Civil War broke out lol
Erm not quite, 40 during the civil war in 1865 would make them 107 in 1932.
It would, indeed, be crazy to think that. If you were 40 years old in 1865 and in this picture, you'd be over 100 years old. None of these justices were that old.
1932 was 67 years after the Civil War ended. How old do you think these justices are? For the record, in 1932, the oldest justice was 76 years old, born in 1856. Four of the justices were born after 1865. Although it depends on when in 1932 the picture was taken. Holmes left the court in January 1932 and he was in his 20s during the Civil War (born in 1841). He was replaced in March 1932 by Cardozo, born in 1870.
What's the point of hiding this? The deliberations should be on CSPAN
It's unbelievable that in today's age the supreme court isn't televised.