All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

The right to equal representation.

The 14th amendment ring any bells BG ?

The 14th amendment was the crux of everyone screaming about Dodd-Frank.

 

Like I asked, where the **** did I defend anything or anyone?

 

You missed the nuance and a small satire. The Office of Government Ethics does not do one thing. The people assigned to the office do.

 

It has been going on for 34 years.......

 

you mean how conservatives have gone bonkers when Chief Justice Roberts ruled in favor of Obamacare? Some conservatives were calling him to resign or be impeached, mostly by the predecessor of the Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party Caucus and some of its members because Roberts "violated his oath of office."

The point is that both sides, regardless of political affiliation are going to complain about some Supreme Court rulings, but then again, that is quite literally, the job of any and all Supreme Court justices sitting on the bench.

However, when you have multibillionaires paying for children's tuition at a private school, paying for very expensive trips, and other things, namely by Gorsuch and Thomas, we pretty much know that any type of lack of ethics or ethical behavior does and will cause every decision to be questioned because you have to wonder whether that justice is rulling in a way that is honest and fair to all parties concerned. If Thomas was a district court judge and this happened, I would guarantee you that he would be facing disciplinary issues in both the Legislative branch and within the DOJ, and not the excuse of "well, he is a conservative just being persecuted" sort of crap.

The Supreme Court should have at least a formal code of ethics at least that is described in the DOJ for its federal magistrate, district, and appellate judges at a bare minimum, or better, having one better. The only real question is who gets to enforce such violations of ethical behavior, the Legislative or the Supreme Court itself through an independent board or IG somehow.

 

That is a bunch of BS. Employees of branches are in the service of that branch. However, the only difference between a judge and a regular employee is who gets to confirm their appointment. For any judge, it is done by the Senate, and thus, the power to impeach is within the scope of the legislative branch if the judge violates the law. Furthermore, the judges are not in direct line of command within the DOJ, at least, the lower inferior courts. But they are "members" of that particular agency because that is who is paying them, directly I might add, along with all the other regular and Presidential appointed employees.

Furthermore, although the President is the chief executive, there are laws on the books in which the President, through Congress has delegated authority on. What you are trying to write is something more of a totalitarian regime than that of what the Framers had in mind originally.

 

They still apply. It is why George Santos is before the House Ethics Board and their investigation. It is also within the scope of law. Any federal employee, hired or confirmed by the Senate is bound by those codes of ethics within CFR 5 and CFR 3. Ethics is a personal choice, more or less, including the ethics governing police officers, lawyers, CPAs, and other professionals. It is who does the firing and why that are the main questions. And those who do violate ethical standards of conduct will normally violate other laws on the books with generally, having an impeachment process to boot if they were confirmed by the Senate or the President of the United States.

So, if the House Code of Ethics finds out that George Santos did violate the code of Ethics within Congress, they can recommend that he be censured or removed through a vote, or he could resign. Thus, Congress, as a legislative body, can do the firing for that member.

 

The intent to this day that the framers did not want mob mentality was not the rule of the day. However, the checks and balances located within the Constitution, especially the power to impeach by the House and removal by the Senate has been known to happen. None were Presidents, but there have been members of the cabinet and judges, especially in the 19th century and early 20th century. But today, it is politics first, country second, whether one is conservative, liberal, or whatever. And that is where the true problem is.

 

Pay is funding. And the Constitution would not set up and fund the appointment of a supreme court but then not require funding for the justices carrying out their constitutional obligations. That would be akin to funding the army but not any barracks, training facilities, uniforms, or transportation, etc.

 

Didn't Sotomayor write a book? That is normal business. However, that is not a violation of ethics unless she never disclosed the payments to begin with. It is a violation of the law if she never reported the money, called royalties, on the tax return. Neither happened with Sotomayor, thus your analogy falls completely short of facts and true comparison.

What is a violation of ethics, not disclosing the payments, is what Thomas and Gorsuch did. Thomas had lavendish gifts made to him by a very rich donor, in which, his company, had business before the Supreme Court. At the very least, to make sure no proprietary malfeasance didn't occur. but if you don't report the gifts, as Thomas and Gorsuch should have, then that is where the ethical standards and violations thereof should come into play. You have to ask yourself, why is a billionaire paying for tuition of a nephew of Thomas and not disclosing it in any regard? Thomas makes good money on the Supreme Court and has plenty of other assets to boot to help pay for tuition himself if he truly wanted to. I would not have fault him for that to his own nephew, but it is completely different having a billionaire friend do it, not report it, and claim that it shouldn't be reported even though the instructions on the form are clearly marked, may show nefarious means on the part of Thomas. Then of the courts, the billionaire may have to fife gift tax returns based on the number of gifts he has done, it is on a per annum basis per person, with both intrinsic and extrinsic value.

 

Has nothing to do with race. You conservatives have beaten that horse to death for over 4 decades now. When Scalia was alive, Thomas barely spoke a word in any oral arguments. That is not saying anything, but a pointed factoid. It was not until after Scalia's death that Thomas began to ask questions in oral arguments. It is also that Thomas wants to get rid of Loving v Virginia, in which, that is a crime punishable by imprisonment under Virginia law for up to 5 years if a black person and a white person showed PDA in the state of Virginia. And there are some documented cases where a black person was lynched for doing something like that.

 

Citizens United basically gave US Domestic Corporations the ability to write a blank check to any political candidate that is running, in office, or their associated political action committees. The issues that Billionaire Crow is doing is just that, for corporations to buy and pay for justices so that they can have their way. Hence, it blurs the lines tremendously that unlimited political donations by domestic corporations to which we are suppose to be governed. Are we being governed by who pays the most to which candidate, or the Constitution and the laws therein?

 

Nothing in this post refutes anything I and others are claiming, and it sticks to your moved goalposts. I readily and clearly said the House can establish a code of ethics for Representatives and can discipline, including kicking out, members who violate that code. (Same goes for the Senate.) But on one outside of the House can ever do that.

This thread and my claims are about an independent group having some control over the ethics of supreme court justices. That also will never happen.

 

What moved goal posts? Again, your response was

What I wrote is in contrary to what I bolded and concentrated on and is part of the indepdendent weight or authority that you are refusing to acknowledge in your post I quoted and hightlighted.

 

If I recall correctly there were a very few outliers who clamored for Roberts' impeachment. His very bad Obamacare ruling was not any where near an impeachable offense.

 

So you don't know either. It did not allow corporations to give to candidates let alone a blank check.

 

Do you disgree with their claims and attacks?

 

How did CU do that? How has your representation been lessened?

 

READ THE CONSTITUTION. The Congress only has oversight of those lower courts not the SCOTUS.

 

A post or two back you threw in federal employees, policeman, etc into the discussion about ethics violations of the supreme court. That moved the goalposts, but who's counting ???

I suspect we may be using "independent" differently. The House can discipline its own members but an outside "independent" group has no weight or authority to.

 

Which is why i said the Tea Party, and it was more than a few outliers ranging from signing a petition on change.org to social media posts, and even a few Tea Party lawmakers and advocates. It is just that no one really listened to them, not even their own party, thank god, but not today though.

However, the point was that is is not just one party over that party sort of thing, but somehow, conservatives sometimes get the bright idea of using guilty by associaiton when one person says or does something, then of course they all do it somehow. We have seen this with BLM, Progressives, and other groups that guilty by association is done with more frequency in conservative circles than in liberal circles.

 

Are you talking about the property that Gorsuch properly disclosed?

 

I'm OK with that too.

 

The fact that you even need to ask that proves you aren't qualified to have this discussion.

Good Bye.

 

But, you also want Congress to have unconstitutional power over the Supreme Court?