All 9 Supreme Court justices push back on oversight

Again: Constitutionally speaking, anyone not a scotus justice is part of an inferior court created by congress. SCOTUS is not one such.

No, I'm pointing out the checks and balances the framers had in mind were such that they presuppose a government that is cooperative and not knives out with each other all the time.
The executive can refuse to carry out the law.
The legislative can refuse to fund.
The judicial can say you can't do that.

 

At the current time there is in fact NO legal consensus as to whether Congress could impose a mandatory ethics code on the Supreme Court of the US.

It has never risen to such an imperative before as a result of the behaviour of a Supreme Court of the US Justice. The closest equivalency we had was Justice Abe Fortas who REPUBLICANS demanded resign for accepting an alleged $25,000 contribution. Fortas voluntarily resigned. Years later the same Republican party selectively ignores being critical of Thomas for politically partisan reasons.

Bottom line legally is that the Congress can legislate tenure of Supreme Court Judges and jurisdictional issues regarding what subject matter the highest court may hear. At the same time the decisions of Judges specifically the highest one in the US must remain separate and not able to be interfered with and influenced by politicians which is often referred to as separation of powers a fundamental principle of democracy.

Interestingly the two faced Republicans argue out of both sides of their cheeks. If there is an going court trial in regards to Trump, they want to be able to intervene, intercept the court from proceeding with a trial against him and stop it. On the other hand when it comes to someone like Thomas engaging in the behaviour he does, they suddenly claim Congress can't interfere. So the Republican Party and particularily Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Ted Cruz and Jim Jordan pass gas out of both sides of their cheeks on the issue and have zero credibility.

The legal debate as to whether Congress could pass a law like a mandatory ethics act for its top court to follow remains in argument. The problem is its badly needed, i.e., an enforced code of ethics, the problem is if the enforcement would be done by Congress it could open the proceeding to being used to interfere with decisions for political and not legal reasons which of course would be a disaster for the concept of court neutrality.

So here is the solution and anyone who says its legal fiction is dead wrong. The Supreme Court of the US could take the very same code of ethics all federal court Judges follow and are mandated by law, and create its own guideline voluntarily where all of its 9 Judges would agree to follow those same guidelines no different that any other court and if there was an issue as to how to decide such ethical issues, they would agree to create and follow the decisions of a tribunal made up of former federal Judges, constitutional law professors and legal experts and scholars on ethics.

The key here is such decisions would not be decided by or enforced by Congress. The top court have always had the ability to do do this self enforcement but will not for some reason now.

When Chief Roberts upon his interview to be appointed to the Supreme Court was asked about this, he said he was in full agreement that all 9 Justices voluntarily follow the federal ethics guidelines. Since becoming Chief Justice he absolutely contradicted this former position.

Judges on the highest court receiving personal benefits deals with a bi-partisan issue. Democrat Justices as well as Republican ones have accepted personal benefits. Yes all nine Judges at the highest court right now will not discuss the issue and whether their silence and inconsistency as to voluntarily following a code of ethics has a resulted in a crisis of trust and confidence in the highest court.

The bottom line is the Supreme Court of the US over the top of its building has a statement saying it applies the law equally but clearly when it comes to itself, does not because it argues constitutionally because government must not interfere with its power to make rulings, also assumes that means it can be unaccountable for its ethical behaviour if it wants.

Well the actual laws of a nation must be applied equally. If you create a vacuum in any democracy where you allow the legislative branch, civil-service administrative branch or judicial branch to operate without full accountability for its ethical conduct, you have corruption and compromise and lack of integrity and so lack of trust.

To have to tell the top court of the US what Thomas or others have done is immoral is sad indeed. These very top Judges know damn well if any other Judge or any elected politician, civil servant, practicing lawyer or Judge engaged in what Thomas and others are now doing, they would be removed from office.

Those arguing there is nothing that can be done unless you convict a Supreme Court of Judge with a criminal conviction miss the point.

You do NOT and have never needed criminal law to assure ethical standards are enforced by professions. All professions, lawyers, architects, physicians, other health care providers, engineers, etc., voluntarily agree to police themselves with associations or colleges or societies and follow codes of Ethics and are brought up for complaints by the public to an internal inquiry process by such regulatory bodies and these professionals governed by these bodies may have their memberships removed, suspended and they may be subject to disciplinary actions and fines.

There is nothing fictitious about that. Its not fantasy, its reality and it works. It assures a specific level of competency and trust which is vital if we are to trust such professionals.

So it may be true any law Congress passes would be ceremonial or symbolic only BUT nothing has ever stopped the highest court from following the federal court of ethics.

Nothing has stopped it from creating a tribunal to provide it direction and if need be decisions. That tribunal if it only was asked to comment one the federal code of ethics, could for example not be triggered by just anyone not liking a decision, but based on say a referral seeking guidance from the Chief Justice, fellow Supreme Court Judge, request by a specific Congressional committee, Department of Justice (federal), Governor, Senator.

A process could be created as to who/why one could trigger a first step of referring a matter to the tribunal to determine if it has a sufficient cause to proceed. Then the Chief Justice and all Supreme Court Judges could voluntarily allow themselves to be bound by specific guidelines or rules set out by the tribunal in regards to specific issues.

This should have been done years ago. It hasn't because it was assumed Supreme Court Judges and their Chief Justice would never have allowed it to go as far as it has now.

 

Stop being OBTUSE. You know exactly how it has been lessoned. You cannot think your “voice” is as loud a voice, or as important as the voice that donates the money to get them elected.

I NEVER mentioned “corporations”, I said MEGA-DONORS ! You and yours claim George Soros is the anti-Christ because he has so much say in democrat circles, yet you don't see that on your side of the isle? You honestly dont understand how political donations work. You should watch The Lincoln Project series and listen to them and how they get around those “laws”. Just watch it and see how things actually work, and then read up on the principals of that organization, and read some of thier articles and listen to their interviews where they are uncharacteristically honest about how they can buy politicians…




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




CU had nothing to do with individuals.[/QUOTE]

 

Don't tell me what I know tell me what you know. How did these two honorable men helping out a young black child in a desperate situation lessen your representation? Just unbelievable you are attacking them for it.

CU was about corporations. Individuals are limited to the $2500 to a candidate's campaign.

 

What is the difference between donations directly to politicians and the PACs that support them?

 

Honorable?
What was the exact desperate situation and when was that?

 

We just disagree. There are a ton of constitutional mandates that are not explicit in the Constitution.

 

I notice nobody cared that before the Citizen's United decision unions were mandating membership to work in their industry and then garnished the wages of their members to help get Democrats elected. That behavior was commonplace and desired.

Also, it's interesting that Democrats think it's okay to ban a person from releasing a documentary that was critical of Hillary Clinton.

 

It is more interesting that you could not muster enough integrity to actually answer the question, diverting into stupid instead.

 

Your question wasn't very intelligent. If you don't know the difference between a campaign, a PAC, or a corporation you should probably look it up on Wikipedia rather than getting snarky that people won't define the differences for you. Your question is pretty amateur. If you have a point to make it's usually better to make the point rather than ask a stupid question hoping someone will make it for you. Ironically, it appears you don't have the integrity to answer my question. I guess you didn't mind union spending and your views are fairly hypocritical...

 

The question was a form of rebuttal to an assertion that implied some practical difference. The way you interpreted it is not intelligent at all.

Your question was irrelevant crap and I do not answer to crap.

 

Just friggen WOW…..

First, you creat a straw man, then you literally turn left and make accuse me being racist for some “black child” ? WTAF are you on about here. Are you going bring up something from the Carol Burnett Show in your next post ?

OF COURSE CU WAS BOUT CORPORATIONS…….Dear lord man, stop creating straw men and debate what I said. Who do you think runs corporations and makes those donations…..Corporations are a tax entity, people actually make the decisions..FFS

 

It's funny to watch the evolution of the defense here.... Nobody (that I've seen) has criticized Clarence or his purchaser for helping the kid out...

It's the ethical reporting part they continue to ignore...

America has a right to know which SCOTUS members have been bought, and for how much, and for how long (well, we know the approx start date anyway)

 

I took it as a rebuttal which is why I responded with a rebuttal of my own. Then you cried that I didn't answer your question. You're being hypocritical.

So when people don't answer your questions it's a lack of integrity, even when you admit it was a rhetorical question. But, you refusing to answer questions is what? By your definition it's a sign of a lack of integrity.

Citizen's United was a case about a movie being blocked from being released because it was critical of Hillary Clinton during a campaign. The law said it was illegal, but the first amendment says we have freedom of speech in this country.

Campaign finance laws say you can only donate a certain amount directly to a campaign for them to spend as they desire. But, individuals have the right to spend as much of their own money on their own political speech because we have the first amendment.

Even while that Hillary Clinton movie was suppressed, unions, which are private organizations, were using local laws to garnish people's paychecks to spend on getting candidates elected. In many cases it was coerced money from individuals contributing to help elect candidates they disagreed with.

Citizen's United said all organizations can do what unions had been doing for years. If you have a business selling a widget, and one party is attacking your widget, you can spend money to defend yourself politically or to back a candidate who supports your widget. That is what Citizen's United does. It levels the playing field allowing all organizations to spend their own money (they don't garnish from employees after making it a requirement to join their union to work in their field). By running away from the union question and the complete hypocrisy you have shown in regard to "integrity," I think it's clear you had no problems with unions doing this before and after Citizen's United.

These PACs are up front about what their goals are, and unlike unions, people are not intimidated or forced into donating to them. It's effectively a union of donors. For example, if I live in a liberal state and I'm pro-second amendment I can donate to a PAC that will support candidates who support my constitutional rights. It's basically a bunch of individuals getting together to pool resources on sending a message to the people. I'm sorry if you hate the first amendment, but it's pretty clear that that behavior is legal.

 

Stop with the strawman dodge I said you were racist and address the question.

How did these two honorable men helping out a young black child in a desperate situation lessen your representation? Just unbelievable you are attacking them for it.

It was you who it discussing it said

CU was about corporations and nothing to do with donating to candidates. It was about issue advocacy.

 

Me>> How did these two honorable men helping out a young black child in a desperate situation lessen your representation?

You mean you don't even know who was the child and the circumstances surrounding the Thomas's taking him in??????

Get back to me when you learn the basic facts here and then can discuss it.

 

Answer the ****ing question, do not divert with stupid crap.

 

Here's exactly what you said. Please be honest. Thanks.


You told me to read a statement he never made. And, you told me that in his statement he neither confirmed or denied any of the reports which seems like a cheap attempt to assume guilt since he didn't deny it in is statement. Yet, he never made a statement. There was no statement where he neither confirmed nor denied anything. You made it all up. This is what started the conversation we are having. Why you think introducing more falsehoods helps your case is beyond me. He never sold a property to "his lawyer friend." They weren't friends. They had never met or spoken to each other. Again, trying imply blame that is not present. You've built your entire argument on a false house of cards... fake statement, fake friend. It's all nonsense.

 

Hmmmm.. so when you say the "Thomas's t[ook] him in", is that admitting that at that point, the child was a dependent of the Thomas's?

 

If you're looking for nuance, if he was not legally adopted it doesn't count as a 'child'.

 

At the end of 1997 thomas signed papers and took custody of his grand nephew. That made the child his legal responsibility. Perhaps at the time the circumstances of the child were not great, I do not know or care. It was in 2008 that thomas decided tho send the kid to a private boarding school.
it is a bullshit lie that sending the kid to the school was somehow a measure to save the kid from some dire circumstance, and the ******* is fully responsible for tuition. When paid by someone else it is income and not declaring it is tax evasion.

 

The IRS definition of claiming a dependent child doesn't mention that... have no idea why you think the SCOTUS definition would differ.

SNIP
The person can't be a qualifying child of another person. The person must be either related to you or must have lived with you all year as a member of your household. The person's gross income for the year must be less than $4,400. You must provide more than half of the person's total support for the year.

• The child has to be related to you as a son, daughter, stepchild, foster child, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, stepbrother, stepsister, or a descendant of any of those.

ENDSNIP

https://www.1040.com/tax-guide/taxes-for-families/who-can-you-claim/#:~:text=The person can't be,total support for the year.

 

What do you mean admitting I have clearly posted that he and his wife took legal custody of the child when the child was six years old. They were acting as foster parents since they did not adopt him and take parental rights. You know a very great and honorable and charitable thing for someone to do are you really going to attack him for it?

 

NO go get yourself up to speed I am not your personal news clipper and researcher. Go read for yourself in the multitude of reporting out there why they took in the child it is key to the story. Then come back when you have informed yourself about the issue.

 

I did not ask you to be my ****ing researcher. I asked, because if you were informed and honest and possibly uninformed, you would have found out the the scumbag is corrupt. A silly assumption on my part about you. Carry on with your partisan dishonesty and ignorance...