All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

Congress is the most powerful branch of the federal government, if it wants to exercise that power.

 

If Congress did do that, who will be able to bitch about it? Congress controls the money and makes the rules.

 

Nope. I want the supreme court to have an enforceable code of ethics. They could just adopt the one the lower courts all use.

 

Congress doesn't make the rules for the Judicial Branch...lol

It's called "speration of powers".

 

Except if they impeach.

 

Gorsuch has never stated he properly disclosed the sale to his lawyer friend or anything else. He gave a typical lawyer answer that was mostly ambiguous.

 

He didn't sell it to his "lawyer friend." They had never met, and he was a minority owner. You can read the financial disclosure form for yourself. That said, I appreciate the retreat from your previously false statement posted below. I Just wish you didn't introduce another false statement in that retreat. Always one step forward, two steps back.

 

That's up to them.

 

The outliers (and maybe more than a few, how ever many that is, but who's counting) who clamored for Robert's impeachment didn't have the first clue oh how a judge can be impeached. Just like all the Democrat who ballyhooed treason at Trump didn't have a clue what constitutes treason. Mostly by conservatives? Ever hear the anti-MAGA crowd? Ever hear of Trump's basket of deplorables? Then sometimes there is guilt through association. Obama invited BLM to the white house for example. Can't get much more birds of a feather than that.

 

And it should not be. At the moment it's akin to letting Al Capone vet all the racketeering laws.

 

JFC

 

Stop being obtuse

You know exactly how it has been lessened. You think that our current representatives vote based on moral, or ethical judgments…..NO, they vote as their mega donors want them to vote.

Ever wonder how a legislator who makes $200,000 a year buys a multimillion dollar house? Ever wonder how a SC justice, who makes $178,000 a year, has multiple houses, in multiple states?

Do you honestly think mega-donors give millions to a campaign, HOPEING they vote like like they want them to ?

 

I think you need to read what Gorsuch actually stated. He neither confirmed nor denied any of the reports on what he sold. But he did not disclose the particulars such as the name of the buyer, who turned out to be a head of a law firm that Neil Gorsuch knows and has worked with. That law firm had 22 cases before the court, but the name of the individual, Brian Duffy, who has filed amicus briefs before the court.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/25/neil-gorsuch-colorado-property-sale-00093579

 

I do agree that Roberts, after making the decision, should not be impeached, but we have had similar incidents with liberal judges who were being called to be impeached because of the rulings they make and so forth. We have had that with even the lower court judges as well. The T-word is starting to be just as overused as the R-word IMO. We have the anti-Mega crowd and we have the anti "radical left crowd." Both sides are the extremes of their respective parties. The difference between then and now has a lot to do with respect for one another. Both Senator Bod Dole and Sen John Glenn, two WW2 veterans, not to mention the Korean War, along with a lot of other representatives and senators, were able to work together even though they had different policies. We don't have that anymore and it shows. And that is the point I was making. The sooner both parties get rid of the extremes, the better it is for our country.

I see the reason why Trump was impeached if you read the Mueller report. But as I have stated, the report was incomplete. Mueller should have had Trump answer questions under oath about the meeting and how much he knew and didn't know legally. At least then, we would have had a fuller picture. But politics got in the way with Trump trying to get rid of the special prosecutor much like what Nixon did in that type of blatant overstepping of authority on Trump's part. But Mueller did what he could and that even got a few Representatives in the House to vote for impeachment. And how did Trump respond, using the T-word and other euphemism that he was "betrayed" by not being loyal to him personally?

 

We did no grant Congress the power to impose an ethics system on the Supreme Court although Congress does have the power end insider trading by Congress and has quite pointedly refused to do so. I'm all for Congress cleaning itself up, first, before they ask us for a constitutional grant for an expansion of power.

'The Supreme Court has ruled against the left on guns and abortion and is expected to strike down affirmative action any day now.
Thus it must be delegitimized in any way possible.'

https://nypost.com/2023/05/01/conservative-supreme-court-justice-hit-pieces/

 

There's no quote from Gorsuch in your article, therefore you are not basing your opinion based on what "Gorsuch actually stated." It said he had no comment at the time the article was published. Therefore, you are not basing your opinion on "what Gorsuch actually stated" and are instead basing it on your imagination.

Again, your retreats are always one step forward, two steps back. Why keep introducing false arguments? Also, your last sentence doesn't make grammatical sense. Care to rephrase it and provide a source?

 

the article specifically said "Gorsuch did not respond to inquiries about the sale, his disclosures or whether he should have reported Duffy’s identity as the purchaser." That means he is neither confirming nor denying anything. He simply did not make any statement whatsoever, which is what I said.

 

No, you told me to READ what he ACTUALLY STATED. I can't read his statement because he didn't make one. You effectively claimed he made a statement that dodged the report. Please be honest. This is absurd. This time we're just taking two more steps back...

 

Your word semantics game is not going to work

 

It's not a semantics game. You claimed he made a statement and told me to READ It. He didn't make a statement. There was NOTHING TO READ. Words have meaning. Two more steps back.

 

That might be a rational response if only Al Capone and racketeering were covered in the Constitution. Like the adage we are going to have ham and eggs, now if only we had some ham and if only we had some eggs.

 

Yes, there have been periods of reasonable negotiations and intercourse between the parties for most of our history albeit with ups and downs. But that all got a wedge the size of Hoover dam driven through it November 2016 when Democrats and others started clamoring for Trump's impeachment even before all the ink on the ballots dried.

I see little benefit in resurrecting this old soup, but you are way out in left field looking for ant hills. To the best of by knowledge Trump's written answers were under oath. In any case it is illegal to lie to a federal investigator in these circumstances. I am not aware of any overt actions Trump took to get rid of Mueller. My guess is he knew perfectly well that he couldn't.

 

No I don't and obviously neither do you.

Speak for your own my goes for the most vote. CU did not allow corporations to donate to politicians the entire premise of your argument is false.

His son is running an influence peddling operation with our global enemies?

CU had nothing to do with individuals.

 

And yet, the plain text does not give them a requirement to do anything but pay the compensation.
They MAY do what they like, there is no mandatory language requiring them to do otherwise.

 

Again: Tell me how it works out when the house sends it if the senate is not receptive.