All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

An orange malignant narcissist comes to mind.

 

Unless the Legislature Branch makes an amendment to the Constitution any legislature governing the SC most likely will be declared unconstitutional by the same Court. Until then, Justices are still subject to impeachment. That's how you hold them accountable.

 

Here's the sad thing Joe, he might actually be with the DOJ. I don't want to accept it but it's a possibility. It's right now a club of 46 Americans, POTUS....and the 9 on the bench, SCOTUS.

 

The Constitution.

 

For clarification purposes, the impeachment process for SCOTUS is the same as for POTUS. Congress has the power to impeach.

 

Which is, with a lack of standards or oversight, almost impossible for them to do and even more impossible to prove.

 

It's obvious to me that they all have something to hide. It should be obvious to anyone.

The field I recently retired from is extremely heavily regulated.

 

Except for the fact that a conservative justice could be caught standing hip deep in half-eaten teenage girls with blood on his teeth and republicans wouldn't impeach as long as they are voting block abortion and voting rights.

 

That's politics. A game the democrats are very skilled at playing.

 

Obvious is another way of saying you don't know but think they are hiding somethings so let's impose oversight on them.

So let me ask you about your heavily regulated field. I work in one the most heavily regulated fields out there, financial services. Over your career you must have seen tons of changes to how you did your job with lots of additions of oversight. Extra security, extra departments, extra processes, additional rules of conduct, mandatory training, etc... Did you ever oppose that extra oversight and if you did was it because you had something to hide? If you did oppose that oversight, like I have on many occasions, what would you say if some third party person said it is obvious you have something to hide.

 

It hasn’t always been this way. The extremists are just way too noisy. Mean spirited too.

 

Like I said, if its legal, I don't care.

 

And yet we keep voting for the same jerks. Term limits might be the only solution, but no one in power even wants to talk about that.

 

I have voted for maybe 10 R/D candidates in the last 20 years. I’m officially done. My fellow citizens love the wedge issue bickering. The losers that are nominated next year will be, at best, completely corrupt and only in it to own the other side.

A pox on both their houses.

Im Libertarian from here on out, unless a more viable third party comes along. I think if they put any time into pondering it, most in the middle would agree with a lot of their platform. (Not all of it; they are out there on some issues.) Their entire platform is based on the same concept. Max freesom for all citizens.

 

Oversight does not move your chess pieces, only observes if you do something that you should not.

Does it mean that there is in "inclination" to? What is it that makes an honorable person, especially one of such high learning and consequently high responsibility, such as a SCOTUS justice, oppose it?

 

Everyone should. How do we achieve that as closely as possible?

 

Actually we do, just not often enough and not loud enough. Please do not forget that it is "we" who have the power and if WE really wanted to, we could elect people that would do what we want.

 

But we don't have the power if our choices for who we elect is an uneducated choice. Most voters only look for one thing - the D or R behind a candidate's name. You really don't need to know what they run on when you choose based on that.

 

https://crsreports.congress.gov/pro...e is no express,Article I of the Constitution.

More specifically, Watkins v United States, where the Supreme Court acknowledged the congressional oversight authority in general, mostly towards the Executive Branch. And in Article 1, the Senate has the authority to oversight in confirming any and all federal judicial ships as established by law. But Congress usually did not get involved with the judicial branch unless a judge committed certain crimes which are impeach able. What the Senate Judiciary Committee, and specifically the chairman, is a very slippery slope that may erode the separation of powers between legislative and judicial. But I think the move is to put pressure on Chief Justice Roberts to come up with some sort of ethics protocols within the Supreme Court sooner, rather than later. And that is what this whole issue is about IMO.

 

I don't know about for a SCOTUS because I do not know there day to day task but I can give you an example from my own experience. Over 20 years ago I started my career at a small tech start up. We started up with mostly programmers and a few key people with vast industry experience. The company grew and became successful and we were ultimately bought by an huge multinational company. Instantly my contact list grew from less than a 100 to 10s of thousands. What being part of a big corporate machine meant was tons of change and with it tons of oversight and process. Everything was recorded, documented and went through multiple layers of approval or review. In the beginning it was a difficult change but it has been a decade now and I am finally at peace with it. I can admit some processes and additional oversight is good especially in areas of security. We were probably a bit lacks in that in the old days but now it is like fort knox. BUT even to this day I look at some of these processes and think WTF. The other week I had a minor issue with my phone line receiving calls. In the old days I would call or walk up to the office tech person and he would have the entire issue resolved in 10 minutes. Now I have to log into a ticket request system. Fill out a ton of information and submit a request. I am not kidding but for over a week I receive something like 20 emails updating the status of my request. Logging the status, the departments it went through, giving updates on the change in status and finally a week later it was assign to someone who called me and fixed it in about 10 minutes. After that I got numerous emails telling me it was complete. So what did we gain with all of this. Every request is now logged with corporate. Managers can query the database and see exactly what tasks the office tech employees worked on and how long it took. A manager can authorize the request and take it out of the hands of the office tech person and my mail box is flooded with a trail of the request which I promptly archived.

 

So you would be ok with Soros paying a liberal justice’s spouse million per year or buying and selling them property? Right?

And them failing to report it of course

 

The attempt in Israel was that Netanyahu wants to OWN the court.

That isn't reform.

No individuals, no branch, no function can be allowed to be above review.

 

Are you suggesting that this had something to do with some branch of our government??

 

??

Republican Chief Justice Roberts has refused to allow that to happen.

The legislature has asked for his presence to discuss ethics. He flatly refuses.

 

No serious proposal has included having an ethics board overseeing the court.

The issue at had is one of wanting the Supreme Court to establish a statement of ethics that THEY will follow.

There ARE expectations concerning recusal, for example.

Justice Thomas FREQUENTLY ignores recusal, even when cases directly affect his family finances and the finances of his benefactors.

That is precisely why recusal was created.