All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

Tell me how all those sendings have historically worked out without the Senate basically calling for it upfront.

 

For which high crime or misdemeanor? Be specific and quote the statutory offenses.

 

You're the one attacking an innocent black man.

 

Senator Whitehouse had proposed and continues to propose a bill to make it mandatory for the Supreme Court of US Judges to follow the same code of ethics as every other Judge in this country. The reason it hasn't passed is political issues preventing the passing of this bill not legal ones.

I also stand corrected. It is wide spread practice for these Supreme Court Judges to accept personal perks. Thomas is just the most plant at it, then Roberts.

It is absolutely reprehensible Chief Justice Roberts refuses to discuss the issue while his wife recruits lawyers for law firms who will appear before the Supreme Court of the US.

Now today we have Ginni accepting $25,000 but hey it wasn't for anything related to court.

Thomas and other Judges at the Supreme level have accepted personal benefits, been involved in conflicts and have compromised themselves. Even their accepting lecture stints at a specific law school George Mason University where they choose the resort they give the lecture is questionable. Enough!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/30/us/supreme-court-scalia-law-school.html

Why we are even discussing this is a phacking joke.

By the way if anyone wants to look Judge Scalia regularly received personal benefits, i.e., over 70. This is a widespread problem and been going on far too long.

 

Thus impeachment is perfectly allowed and isn't a "nuclear option", as some have claimed....

 

That is not at all relevant. If SCOTUS screwed up on the Constitution or the law, it's on them to fix it. Even if you could get a large majority of Congress to hypothetically agree to impeach one or more of them for making what was in their opinion a legal error, it would itself be Unconstitutional. Any difference of opinion, if really strong, can be undone via Constitutional Amendment with 2/3rds of the House, Senate, and 3/4ths of the States.

 

Go read post #283 from your fellow denier.... the B word works for me....

 

They didn't "screw up". They went looking for a justification for the ruling they had already been paid to make.

It wasn't a mistake, it was corruption.

 

Aren't you defending Durbin and the people at Propublica?

 

I'll throw in Citizens United which like the others was entirely based on the Constitution and why it and the others can never be attacked on the merits by the left but instead the Justices are subjected to the personal attacks and attempted murders.

 

So bribery then?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201

(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
official act;
(B)
being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C)
being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;



So make the elements meet up. Show Thomas 1) accepted or agreed to accept a thing of value 2) in return for an official act or the not doing of an official act or duty.

https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/0...explained-his-perspective-on-disclosure-laws/
"Despite the media's best efforts, there have been no reports that Crow transacted actual business before the Supreme Court. His goal seems to be to protect his privacy from critics that have been trying to destroy him for more three decades."
You're going to have a pretty hard time proving 2 there.

 

Impeachment isn't a legal process.... Bribery in this case is what Congress determines it is...

Or they would if we had a House capable of realizing their Court is currently a worldwide joke...

 

That is not what anyone is saying (except for your misrepresenting of things). The Supreme Court adhering to a mandatory, enforceable code of ethics-- which is not what that paper they signed, sent to Congress, by the Chief Justice was-- just like all the rest of the Judiciary, as well as Congress, and the President (who even has an advisory post in his administration, just for ethical evaluations), is in no way being beholden to Congress. It is only being beholden to ethical behavior, as prescribed from a more objective source, than each Justice's personal opinion of their own conduct. It is a foundational tenet of English, and so American, law, that no man can be the judge, in his own trial. Can you not understand the conflict of interest?

Holder has said that, of course, the High Court should have official ethics standards. As previously mentioned, they need not come from Congress, if the Court is willing to make such a set of standards, for itself.

This issue is not going away.

 

LOL no you're not getting it I see.

Let me spell it out: Constitution names bribery. US code has a statutory offense with elements.
You don't meet the elements its not a bribe. They impeach anyway, SCOTUS overturns as unconstitutional since they didn't meet the elements.

 

Not one remote chance in hell....

 

No, you're not getting it... Nobody will be charging Thomas with Bribery in a court of law (well, probably not... TBD)

If you don't like Bribery, we can go with the old "high crimes and misdemeanors" which should be defined as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers them to be at a moment in history.”

Whatever, Bro gotta Go...

 

Again: SCOTUS reviews things for constitutionality.
A case is filed saying congress didn't act with their authority and enjoining further action. Scotus hears it as original jurisdiction..... Scotus don't like it? They say so.
You've got 9 here saying **** off. How likely is it do you think that 8 tell you to **** off post impeachment for something that does not legally qualify as a bribe?

 

Because they can be impeached, does not free them from any other guide for "good Behavior," as the Constitution, itself, takes the time to include (and it capitalizes "Behavior"). Any lower court judge of the Judiciary can also be impeached, yet all the rest do follow a mandatory code of ethics. This is no argument, you are offering.

And your comment about an "ethics review board," is a fiction.

Another nonsense objection, based on a fabricated fantasy.

I have indicated the words you'd underlined, in red. What I feel is the more relevant part, I have left bolded, as I'd written it. I have added, an additional underlining, which strengthens the implied expectation of an ethics code-- "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior"-- in the idea that the Supreme Court should be treated, in this regard, no different than any lower court: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts."

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.


As to your emphasis, in red, it only shows that the words you'd used, to refer to my rhetoric-- "God awful"-- would apply, in spades, to your understanding of this text. All that sentence does, is give Congress the power to "ordain & establish," additional, inferior courts, as necessary (but not the Supreme Court, of course, because that very document, the Constitution, was in the process of doing that exact thing, for the SCOTUS, at that moment). Saying that Congress can ordain & establish lower courts, does not in any way, shape, or form, translate into the words, Congress can impose no ethics rules on the Supreme Court.


Get a tutor.

 

When will congressional Democrats go after Sotomayor for taking money from a publisher? See link below.

Shouldn't the Democrats at least TRY to be consistent with their quest to keep the SC judges above board? Or does this matter only when it's a conservative SC judge?

Sotomayor Took $3M From Book Publisher, Didn’t Recuse From Its Cases: Report (conservativebrief.com)

 

Highly unlikely give the hyper partisan take below.....you have not disappointed, the Trump party of "rules for thee but not me" mantra.

 

The Constitution makes a distinction between the Supreme Court it creates and all the other lower court judiciaries which THEY create.

Congress is engaged in a power grab to make the SCOTUS beholding to them and a set of ethics they create and thus would enforce. UNCONSTITUTIONAL it is going nowhere.

 

When you can discuss the issue instead of me due to the lack of merit to your claims let me know.

 

You are always left with posts like the above because the hyper partisan lens is so easily exposed when your "rules for thee but not me" party is will to sell it's soul and America's future to remain in power and to have the tyranny of the minority dictate. Maybe the middle east is appealing as a political model?

 

Agreed.

 

Again: You can impeach them through the very particular impeachment process.
You don't get to appoint a review board to **** with them in the same fashion without the bother of the actual impeachment process. You will require a constitutional amendment to do what you suggest.
You're not getting one.

Congress can ordain and establish lower courts and set basic rules for them they must follow. Congress doesn't do that with SCOTUS, SCOTUS sets its own rules. Been that way for 200+ years now dude.


Realize that using colored text, caps attack, and emphasis doesn't make your argument correct friend.