All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

I would prefer the judiciary have their independence. Otherwise it'll just be another thing exploited by the two parties even more than it already is.

 

Where does the legislative branch think they derived the authority to oversee the judicial branch?

 

They are accountable to an authority. Congress. They have oversight remember? Why haven't they been doing their jobs?

 

Congress. They're the ones who have oversight. Why haven't they been doing their job?

 

sounds like it doesn't it

 

LINK: Overview of Congress's Investigation and Oversight Powers | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

 

Kal, I am well aware of the impeachment power. I was asking a Member here to tell me why a Justice of the Supreme Court should not be accountable. I am waiting for them to give me their explanation.

Tell me Kal, what do you reckon the term 'good behaviour' means?

 

Bold: Don't break the law. For instance, in reference to Thomas and those vacations or selling property or whatever it was (I haven't paid attention to it in the slightest), I have no problem with it. So long as he didn't make a ruling based on it. Because then that would be a bribe, which is illegal.

 

I guess that means we'll have to impeach them all.

 

Ok...so 'good behaviour' means so long as you break no Law, you are okay, in your view.

So.....If a Supreme Court Justice, a married one, were to publicly have an affair with a seventeen year old....fine by you? If the same Justice went apeshit publicly on legally acquired MJ in Arizona and broke no Law going apeshit, fine by you. If the same Justice donated 50% of his salary to the Democrats, fine by you? So long as it is lawful, no matter how unethical...it is still 'good behaviour' yes?

 

You guess 'what' means 'we' will have to impeach them all?

 

P

sign me up.

 

I am not saying oversight is not warranted. I am saying it is kind of normal for people to oppose oversight being put on them.

 

If by affair you mean having sex, that would be illegal, just going out on dates and not having any sex? Don't care. That's between him and his wife, the mistress, and her parents. As for the "apeshit" and breaking no laws, free speech is free speech man, even Judges have that Right. Sotomayor for instance has said things publicly that are imo unethical. (trashing on other judges on the same bench as her) Same goes for spending their personal money on donating to...well...ANY party. Btw, I'm not aware of anything saying that they can't or even don't donate to any particular party? I had already assumed that they do make donations already, do you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

I disagree. I have had many battles with oversight, with me on the losing end, but I has nothing to do with me being corrupt. It is more of the "who moved my cheese" type of issue.

I don't disagree that modern organization need policies in place to protect the reputation of the organization. I am just saying it is human nature to oppose it and simply opposing it does not mean you are violating any ethics.

 

What is it they are hiding? All nine justices opposed greater oversight. Do you believe all nine have something to hide?
Would you oppose greater oversight in your field? Do you have something to hide?

 

Feel free to submit all the Amendments you think are necessary to bring it 'up to date' in your book. I, for one, would be quite interested in seeing your proposals, if for nothing more than humor. I am happy enough with the Constitution as is that I signed a contract that I would literally give my life to preserve, protect, and defend her. I guess you probably did not, eh?

 

When the scotus was designed, it was to preserve the independence and freedom of the justices to rule on law in an impartial way, but now that the scotus is just another partisan sewer, we need to adapt.
I suggest upping the court to 25 judges and each side gets to nominate and approve 13 judges.
Then when a dem or repub gets elected potus, they can bench one of the opposition judges during their time in office and have a majority of one.
That way there’s less chance of an extremist partisan takeover on the court and maybe the parties will try to nominate actual intelligent and capable justices instead of cheap partisan hacks since the court will always remain largely balanced and hopefully more able to represent the idea of justice.

 

So, you are suggesting that a USSC Justice's spouse is subject to extralegal restrictions on what they can and cannot do for a living. Or more to the point, I suppose, should be subject to the same??

 

So long as the age of consent in the jurisdiction wherein said affair happened was 17, and many are, that is a matter between them and their spouse. Not everyone lives in a completely monogamous marriage, even if their marriage itself is between only two, as all legal marriages must be. I would have no issue changing that, but figuring out the tax tables and how that would play in would be a bitch! If the age of consent was 18, if, and only if, it was a platonic relationship until their affair partner/lover was 18 that would be fine, as well.

 

Nothing illegal about a married man have sexual intercourse with another woman over 16 is there?

 

I sure did not.

I'd boot the 2nd for starters.

 

Well, if the bloke is a Justice, I disagree it is merely between him and his spouse, should the matter become public. Then, questions of hounourable conduct, 'good behaviour,' ethics clicks in, yes?

 

Of course, who doesn't want to be above reproach or oversight hence unaccountable.

 

A normal person would understand that more oversight is needed when they got caught going WAY and WAY over the line. And these are not normal people. These are supreme court judges who all are VERY aware that what is going on shows how utterly corrupt they are. So this is not just a normal person acting out as if it's not needed. These are people who do not what to be exposed for what they are.