All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

The terms do not fit. *******s are more to the point.

 

Racist.

And:

Judy Munro-Leighton admits to lying about the rape accusation.

She's facing charges. Finally.

 

So for over 230 years the SCOTUS has been corrupt because those of such high character and incorruptible caliber have not been overseeing them and dictating their rules?

 

This is a seriously ridiculous assumption.

There is a LIST of cases where ANY ethics standard would have called for Thomas to have recused himself.

Past justices finding themselves in similar circumstances with a particular case HAVE recused themselves.

The general standard has been for the court to behave in a way that is above reproach.

Thomas does not come within a country mile of that guideline.

He's even called for cases that could be used to further his personal beliefs!!

 

Oversight by who, exactly?

 

You must not be American. It is truly not perceived, by anyone, as anything but racist, here in the States.

 

Lol, fancy yourself a bit, do ya?

 

You're the one who posted the definition.

 

"chief justice of the supreme court".

Did you miss that?

 

Nope.

And who?

 

Born right in the middle of deep red Oklahoma and currently residing in equally red Kansas.

It's not my fault if you guys don't understand what the comment means. Especially after one of you posted a definition.

 

So you still believe the lies.

That's what it would be used for to lie about people and to try and create a fascism where the only people that get picked are left wing people.

 

How you don't know it means traitor to one's own people is beyond me.

 

Human institutions are inherently as corrupt as humanity. The power of the SCOTUS is limited by a system of comprehensive checks and balances.
Justices are not above the law.

https://legalknowledgebase.com/who-keeps-the-supreme-court-in-check

 

Why are the Liberal justices going? Are you afraid to answer that question?

 

WRONG. No one is above the law. There is only one body, which makes laws: Congress.
Article 1, in the Constitution. The Legislative branch (with the approval of the Executive branch, but which can be overridden). The Judiciary (the Court) does not, or at least is not constitutionally intended to, make laws, or rules for the legislature. It is, however, absolutely "beholden" to follow any laws, made by Congress, unless they rule it unconstitutional.

That would be interesting, and rather damning, if the SCOTUS found that making ethics rules-- which apply to everyone else, in government-- are constitutionally prohibited, applied to the Supreme Court. There is no basis, for such a view.

 

Your article, does not support your claim, that "The power of the SCOTUS is limited by a system of comprehensive checks and balances." In fact, your source confirms the right of Congress to not only make laws to which, members of the Court would need adhere, but also to alter the number of Justices, on the High Court; and, to impeach Justices, including for bribery.


<Snip>
What check does Congress have against the Supreme Court?
Congress's main checks on the judiciary include the power to amend the Constitution, pass new laws, approve the president's appointment of judges, control the number of justices on the Supreme Court, and impeach judges guilty of treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors.



What can the President do to check the Supreme Court?
The president checks the power of the courts by appointing new judges. The power of the Supreme Court can swing greatly on a single appointment. The Congress has a part in this check as well because they must approve the president's appointment.

 

The SCOTUS is a separate branch. Congress cannot regulate it beyond what is specifically allowed in the COTUS.

The House always has the power to impeach Justices, and Justices can be charged with crimes.

 

How does any of that contradict this: "The power of the SCOTUS is limited by a system of comprehensive checks and balances."

 

The Constitution (COTUS) does specifically designate the Congress, as the lawmaking body for ALL. It absolutely does not EXEMPT the Judiciary, or even the SCOTUS, from needing to comply with these laws.

 

Hence: The House always has the power to impeach Justices, and Justices can be charged with crimes.

In fact, Congress cannot make any "law" without the President's approval unless it can override a veto.

Whenever Congress succeeds in making a law is that last word? Surely you know that it is not.

 

Reports today that John Roberts' wife got 10.5 million from some consulting work and also did not fully report or disclose the source. SCOTUS need a legal standard they must adhere to for disclosure and reporting possible conflicts of interest as well as possible influence. A law firm AGAIN like in the Gorsuch case....
Chief Justice John Roberts’ Wife Made Millions From Top Law Firms: Whistleblower

 

Nope, you're already getting backlash for your repeated racist posts. It's predictable when someone says something racist online.

 

Then you either didn't read it or your feigning ignorance.

 

Try going to an inner city and call someone an Uncle Tom to see if they don't find it racist. Good luck!