All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

Congress would require a constitutional amendment to get that done.
They don't have that power over scotus. By design.

 

Powers of the purse are actually something within their authority, so that works.

 

The why make silly baseless posts?

 

NO judge, no matter at what level, should be hearing cases where that judge has personal interests (including financial interests) at stake.

Period.

 

Link me to your constitutional lawyer bio, I posted Luttig's wiki bio, link me to yours or you just can't handle nor debunk Littig's salient take.

 

According to the D senators, they just need 10 R senators to fight the appearance of corruption and set a basic minimum ethics standard as guidelines.

 

They can write up something and pass it, then it's the SCOTUS that has to explain why they are unable to police themselves. Shame them, all nine.

 

I much prefer clear and untainted links like the Constitution over the murky ideological opinions of lawyers and professors (my emphasis)..

Article III

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, [sic] and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, .........;

Article II

The President shall have power,................. to nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint.............. judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States [including inferior judges],

Nowhere does it say, imply, or even hint of the possibility of congress ever passing any laws regarding the control and/or supervision, let alone prosecution of the Supreme Court or any of its Justices

 

Goes to show what the hell they know.

 

Oversight.

That's not "scrounging around".

 

And nothing you have posted stops Congress from passing a minimum standard of ethics for SCOTUS.......did you even read what Luttig testified to? It's like the article is addressing one thing, ethical standards, a minimum, and you are discussing something else. SCOTUS is NOT ABOVE THE LAW.

 

Nope. That's 9 people with something to hide. Nothing more.

 

Yet another f*** up by the founding fathers.

They should've put some mechanism for removing corrupt republican justices like stuffed-robe thomas, and possibly gorsuch now too, into the Constitution.

A real shame that, for all intents and purposes, there's no way to can that filthy, corrupt republican dirtbag thomas.

 

Any corrupt justices, regardless of party, which they aren't supposed to have anyway.

 

Congress pass laws. The President has the option to sign or veto the law. And people who have jurisdiction can bring it up to the Supreme Court to challenge, which may or may not go their way. Read Obamacare for instance.

that is the essence of our Constitutional government and the guarantee that no one party or person can become a dictator. You really should listen to what Justice Scalia had to say. The link below says it all.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=492276528117429

 

They did, it's called the impeachment process and there have been a few justices to be removed for violations of law and oath of office. But the founders believed that mob mentality also does not work, thank GOD.

 

Generally no. But Congress does have oversight and investigative powers though, which is very broad. But the whole point is not what you see or what you think you see, but the subtitle political dogma with ethical standards, or at least an update to ethical standards.

personally, I think they are pressuring Chief Justice Roberts to come up sooner rather than later, a code of ethics for Supreme Court justices in order for Chief Roberts to regain control of the Supreme Court after the leak, and the probably unethical violations by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch.

 

To be fair, they likely didn’t expect what we have now in terms of political parties that completely disregard the will of the people and only exist to force their agenda on the nation.

 

Oversight by who? Congress with the 20% approval rating? lmao

 

And you "paste up something," that says-- if hypothetically, the Congress was united in agreement upon the vital need for this-- that Congress cannot impeach them all, for refusing. In fact, that Congress has this power to pass laws, which could impose standards, and requirements, on any government worker-- whether or not you realize it-- is something that is not at all in question; it is manifestly clear, in the Constitution. The only possible overruling, would be on the grounds that the requirements were unreasonably onerous. But as they would be essentially the same, to which the entire rest of the Judiciary (and the Congress) must already adhere, that argument is washed up, before it is even made.

So while I know my stipulated unanimity among the priorities of the political Parties, is unrealistic, so is your stipulated SCOTUS response: that they would issue a patently bogus ruling, clear to any constitutional lawyer in the country. The Justices, nevertheless, doing this, would certainly be grounds-- as long as we are playing the game of imaginary scenarios-- for charges of "abuse of power," leading to their impeachments.

 

That is correct, but your depiction of the Justices as heroic, would not be, if they so abused their power, as to issue a patently bogus opinion, that they are the only 9 government officials who are barred from being subject to ethics rules. The Constitution says no such thing, and it doesn't take a Supreme Court Justice, to tell us that. They have no valid Constitutional basis, for declaring rules akin to those to which all other government officers are subject, "unconstitutional," or for declaring themselves immune, from them. As such a ruling would wholely discredit them, in the eyes of the public, and turn their Court into a joke, in the minds of any, educated in Constitutional law (at least the honest ones), I don't think they would do such a thing. And they understand, if they did so blatantly flout the law, they are not immune, to the remedial powers of Congress.

 

Not a single one of those arguments, holds water. Let's start with the last one. Note, that he makes no legal objection, but a practical one. However, this not being a perfect world, whenever there can be problems foreseen, in one prospective course of action, that cannot automatically disqualify that path; its faults must merely be weighed against the faults of any alternative options. That there would be some motions for Justices to recuse-- and I think he is blowing this potential situation up, out of proportion to reality-- is really not such a big deal: judges rule on motions, all the time. At any, in the least bit, significant trial, it is a given that there will be motions filed. So what? It doesn't present a problem to the rest of the Judiciary.

But, aside from that, if the alternative, is a Court which the public does not trust to be impartial-- there could be no worse affliction, upon that Court. So, dealing with those motions, will obviously be worth the benefit, of restoring the image of the Court's integrity.

The middle point of the argument, that forcing the Justices to submit to the judgement of panels of Appeals Court Judges, would invite "politically motivated allegations," is basically a joke. First off, just having a political system, is an invitation to politically motivated allegations. Note, once again, this is not even a legal argument, but an attempt at a pragmatic one. Therefore, we must use the same rule, as with the last objection: since the alternative, of the Court not being answerable to anyone else, would make them above the law-- once more, the cure, despite its imperfection, is far better than allowing the disease to continue.

Lastly, your lawyer's opening point, seems ambiguous. He says that, if the ethics requirements came from Congress, this would, in his opinion, "infringe the separation of powers." However, the entire rest of the Judiciary must follow such rules, and if those had not originally come from Congress, then this should have been mentioned, in his argument. But if Congressionally passed ethics rules have sufficed for all this time for everyone else, in that branch of government, it is clearly laughable, that only the High Court would be exempt. And I am confident, the Constitution stipulates no such immunity, for the SCOTUS, from the need to follow ethics rules.

 

Would you be so kind as to back up your Constitutional opinion, with a citation from that document?

 

He makes the constitutional issue and the legal and you can watch his entire statement at the link.

The current Dem strawman as if tje people believe the Congress is the harborer of all things ethical.

This is about ONE thing the bogus assertions about Thomas based on some shoddy reporting.

It is exactly what would happen.

He's not my lawyer he is the former Deputy Attorney General of the United States your attempts to be dismissive notwithstanding.

This will go nowhere.

 

SCOTUS doesn't have to explain anything and the Cheif Justice already declined the invitation to do so.