All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

The house has the power to complain, the senate has the power to punish, indeed. Bifurcated branch, bifurcated powers.

Refusing to fund an entire branch of government is a nuclear option. Impeachment is a nuclear option. Do you imagine that plays well with the populace? Do you imagine the other branches wouldn't retaliate with their own powers?
IE nuclear option, in reference to mutually assured destruction as a concept.
You DO know what an analogy is right?

 

Who brought that up?? Certainly not I

Impeachment of a single member is NOT remotely a nuclear option... but the first one would be...

 

People in this thread have suggested it.
In point of fact, if you click that little arrow that shows the previous post, you will eventually find me telling someone who suggested they defund the SCOTUS that that would actually be within the house's power.

They've suggested that any who do not want these ethics rules are simply shy because they're corrupt. All 9 have said **** off. Ergo, all 9 are monsters who need to go according to that poster. Hence, nuclear option.
Further: Impeaching a scotus justice has never been TRIED. When Congress tried impeaching Trump and Clinton, and the other historic times its tried impeachment of another branch member, things got rather hostile rather quickly.

 

I don't find the people who need to have some oversight saying they don't need to have some oversight to be a particularly convincing argument... do you? It's like a 9 year old saying they don't need a babysitter anymore....

And just because something has never been tried doesn't mean it's not warranted... The framers DID consider that as a possible concept, even for a SCOTUS member... Other than possibly Abe Fortas, I cannot think of a SCOTUS member in history needing an impeachment trial more than this clown....

 

Correction. Impeachment happens in The House. One impeached, it goes to The Senate for trial.

 

For members of Congress and POTUS, yes there is Quite a bit. Most people who occupy the office honor the code of ethics to the best of their ability. One person who occupied the office thought the White House quite literally belonged to him as long as he is alive.

Here are the links:
House code of Ethics
Senate Code of Ethics and the Senate Select Committee for Ethics
Code of Ethics for the President of the United States which includes everyone in the US Federal Government.

Chief Roberts has said that the Supreme Court "follows" the code of ethics for all judges who are magistrates, district, and appellate, but I think that is more flutter than reality.

 

So, with 30 plus federal executives and judges that have been confirmed in the Senate, all of them were "nuclear options?" So, you want to talk about Judge Mark Fueller? Although not impeached and removed from office, he resigned, but he probably would have faced impeachment and removal based on what he did and pled guilty to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_officials

 

Your source, does not support your interpretation. I had asked you, by the way, to cite the particular passage in the Constitution, which you believed to say that the Congress could not pass ethics rules for the High Court, even if it could, for the rest of the Judiciary:

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

Your initial claim, had been:

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


If the Constitution had actually said this, in its outlined design, one would not think it asking much, for you to quote the specific words. Regardless, since our foundational document is so brief, we can just go through Article 3 (the Judicial branch), in its entirety.

<Snip>

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, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
<End>

So do you agree, there is absolutely nothing in Section 1, saying that the Congress can pass no law that applies to the SCOTUS? To the contrary, the phrase I highlighted, "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," begs the question, as to what would be the measure of this.


<Snip>

Section 2

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
<End>

That section is about judicial purview, jurisdiction-- it says nothing at all, about not needing to follow any rules, made by Congress.

Only one more section, to go:

<Snip>

Section 3

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
<End>

And that section, deals only with treason. So I'll ask again: where the hell did you get the idea that you stated-- that, for the Congress to pass ethics rules, applicable to the SCOTUS,
Reality said: ↑
Congress would require a constitutional amendment to get that done.

Because:

Reality said: ↑
They don't have that power over scotus. By design.

 

... “This is way outside the norm. This is way in excess of anything I’ve seen,” said Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, referring to the cascade of gifts over the years.

Painter said that when he was at the White House, an official who’d taken what Thomas had would have been fired: “This amount of undisclosed gifts? You’d want to get them out of the government.” ...

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

https://twitter.com/RonWyden/status/1654166633269587968?cxt=HHwWgMCz9b3y4_QtAAAA

Keep the HEAT on this corrupt republican son-of-a-b*tch thomas and his billionaire master, Ronnie.

 

This entire idea/thread/etc is based on the thought that this statement is not true, and that making rulings that certain segments do not like, regardless of whether of not they reflect the legal realities, is or at least should be an impeachable offense. It is a sad state of affairs caused by a society that has lost track of what the definition of a 'woman' is.

 

That, along with your socialist quote of FDR in 1933, says it all, I think. Dobbs, Heller, Bruen, these proper legal decisions based on Constitutional Law cannot be allowed to stand, because it stands in the way of the Russification of the United States. Therefore, he must be destroyed, as well as anyone else who might obstruct that process, eh comrade?

 

The framers and founders were well aware the people are not angels.

 

Then your conclusions would be fallacious.

Other than Sotomayor perhaps it appears they have.

 

All of those are internal statements of intent or desire and have no judicial or independent weight or authority in the least except for employees of the government. The House and Senate can kick out or sanction its members but no one else can. No one can kick out or sanction presidents or justices other than through impeachment.

 

Refusing to fund a branch of government is not really an option. The Constitution says that justices and presidents shall receive, not shall receive if congress agrees. The Constitution also gives presidents and justices constitutional obligations so those must be funded too, although that gets nebulous as to the degree.

 

It states that they shall maintain the general welfare of the United States. In the Constitution the "United States" is the federal government and welfare is it's well and proper and necessary functions. Article three mandates such a court exist and be functional.

Actually each house of the Congress has equal standing as far as spending. It is bills to raise revenues that must originate in the House.

Ahh the House impeaches the Senate decides to remove or not for the impeachment.

The President is sworn to do so.

Yes.

 

Your desperation is showing.

 

It's not really all that complicated. Their attack on Justice Thomas shows us Democrats are still trying to track down run-away slaves.

 

Does it say "they shall maintain the general welfare"?
Highlight where in your response.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

It says it has the power to do these things. It doesn't say it must or shall do these things.

Colloquially known as the 'power of the purse'.

As stated, bifurcated branch, bifurcated power. Tell me how effective house impeachment has been, historically speaking, when the senate isn't having it? If you don't have the senate on board, you don't have it. Getting a circus riled up to pass articles for the senate to try as you have seen recently is essentially child's play.

See Trail of Tears amigo. Are you saying that didn't happen? What punishment did Jackson face for loudly telling the supreme court to lick his taint?

 

Quote the clause in the Constitution you're citing to.

 

As stated: They can be impeached, see impeachment clause (high crimes and misdemeanors).
That doesn't mean you can appoint an ethics review board. They are not a court created by statute ruled by congress's simple whimsy.
I went ahead and changed the emphasis in your post to show you where you missed the basic citation.
You're really just god awful at rhetoric. No one referred you to section 3 of article III.

 

My desperation? I am not the one defending a scumbag.

 

Employees of branches are not members of branches. Scotus is the judicial branch, the rest including other fed judges of inferior courts are simply servants of that branch.
The president is the executive, all cabinet members are simply servants.
Congress critters and senators are the branch members of the legislative branch, their aids are just servants.

Tell me what happened with all presidential impeachments.

 

None of those were based on the constitution. The reasoning for Dobbs is particularly specious.