More evidence for the need of an ethics board to govern the SC.

Good thing I'm not doing that then, isn't it.

 

He's not racist, Corn Pop. I call Joseph Biden "Uncle Biden" often. It's got nothing to do with race.

 

He admits he is calling him an Uncle Tom. He doesn't deny it. He claims calling someone an Uncle Tom isnt racist. He was also kicked last month from another major political forum for calling for the death of a Republican senator and saying he would celebrate it while he died. Which is why the activity here is so high recently. The irony of being lectured about "ethics" is incredible.

 

Meh, he probably never even read Uncle Tom's Cabin.

Im not being lectured at all. I think he thinks he is playing Jeopardy, answering any question with a question.

 

Come now Jack. You have a real blind spot when it comes to McTreason.

Why We Can’t Ignore McConnell’s Hypocrisy

For most people, the news that McConnell is being unprincipled will be roughly as surprising as the news that professional wrestling is staged. Still, we need to give this instance our attention, if for no other reason than to observe a sad decline in the art of political chicanery. American politicians have been bamboozling the public since the dawn of the republic, but in bygone days they at least tried to sound convincing. There was such a thing as skill, damn it, and craft.
https://newrepublic.com/article/159449/mitch-mcconnell-ginsburg-hypocrisy

 

The fly never has a good word for the swatter.

 

The fly being democracy, the swatter McTreason.

 

You've just posted the whining from those who were outsmarted by Mitch (after he warned them).

 

Why do leftists always use editorial articles as evidence?

 

We all do when it suits our purposes, right or left.

 

You seem to think an unprincipled abuse of power is both smart and justified because McTurtle carried thru with a threat. That's very odd.

 

Kagan worried about bagels while Clarence Thomas lived large with Harlan Crow

Justice Elena Kagan was concerned about the ethical implications of receiving bagels and lox from her high school friends. Really.

It seems quaint to contemplate that newly reported anecdote, but it’s all the more important to do so in light of the years of lavish, unreported gifts that Justice Clarence Thomas received from GOP billionaire Harlan Crow.
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-whit...l-blog/kagan-bagels-clarence-thomas-rcna83707

Heartening to see some justices take ethics seriously while Clarence uses his position for everything he can get.

 

People are mixing terms here. Unethical and illegal are not synonymous. Judges all up the line are subject to their work being reviewed and possibly overturned by a higher court. While some do get overturned it is surprisingly rare and worth noting. However, Supreme Court justices, as the final word, cannot be overturned except by future Supreme Courts. This is why it has always taken a 60-40 vote or better to approve them to keep out extremists such as we have now added. More importantly, if there were more moderate justices they themselves would have addressed the issues raised in the Thomas affair privately to prevent an erosion in faith in the fairness of the Supreme Court that we are seeing now. Mitch McConnell will rot in Hell for what he has done and the Senate needs to fix that. They need to return it to at least 60-40 or better to get appointed and make the rules very clear as to how hearings and voting is done. We just witnessed one person block one candidate from being considered at all for nearly a year and the same people that supported that fiasco put in a replacement days before another election. Put in stone when are you going to wait for an election to be held and do away with any one person or group from blocking even hearings on a new candidate. Did you know Mitch even had someone go in everyday to swear the senate in session and then close the session in the same phrase just to prevent even an interim appointment which a president is allowed when the senate is not in session. There's a word for that, evil.
The Supreme Court members also need to restore the semblance of ethics, we can't be having one justice turning down free smoothies while another is taking free excursions worth hundreds of thousands. It's best that they impose new rules on themselves rather than force the rules down their throats. By doing it themselves they restore faith far better than if forced to do it by Congress. If they don't like being transparent in their finances like all others in lower courts are then they are free to quit and future candidates free to decline.

 

There was nothing abusive or unprincipled in McConnell's actions.

 

There absolutely was, he singularly blocked one candidate from even being considered nearly a year prior to an election to "let the voters decide" and stormed through another, after lowering the number of votes required, days before and election. An election that the person who nominated the Justice lost.

 

The Biden Rule applies when the Senate majority is of one party and the White House is held by the other. That was the case with the Garland nomination, but not the Barrett nomination. McConnell followed the rules the Dems had established.

 

Your belief in the Tooth Fairy noted.

 

I merely cite the historical record.

 

Left's Disinformation Operation Against SCOTUS
Josh Hammer, American Spectator




The past five weeks has seen a flurry of media activity, clearly coordinated, against the right-of-center U.S. Supreme Court. Read More

 

African Americans See Racism in Attacks on Thomas
Steve Huntley, JohnKassNews



By Steve Huntley May 12, 2023 An idea for a poll: Survey black Americans to see if they think racism is any way behind the three-decade-long,... Read More

 

There's a certain symmetry between Thomas's ethics violations and Trump's egregious abuses of power. Neither were accounted for when rules/laws were established for the behavior of presidents and SC justices.

Of Trump’s many excesses, his assault on legal norms has to rank high in terms of damage to fundamental values that form the fabric of America. His attacks on the free press, the independent judiciary and the independence of the Department of Justice have all created significant damage. His abuse of executive discretionary authority has made a mockery of the concept of checks and balances. His gaming of the judicial system has revealed weaknesses in our legal process. His attempts to place himself (and his family and his business interests) above the law have called into question foundational national conceptions of equal justice. In short, President Trump has led a wrecking crew (aided and abetted by William Barr and Mitch McConnell) that has severely damaged American legal norms of behavior.

The author of this article.........

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform
https://www.lawfareblog.com/repairing-rule-law-agenda-post-trump-reform

.......identified any number of areas in need of reform in the wake of the Orange Menace's actions. So too reforms need to be put in place the repair, to the extent possible the Court's tarnished reputation thanks to Clarence putting personal interests before the Court.

Will anything happen? Not if Repub's strategy of doing nothing while outrage fades is successful.

 

The Clarence Thomas Stories That PBS Refused To Tell
John Danforth, WSJ



I gave an interview about the Supreme Court justice that ended up on the cutting room floor. Here's what the network didn't air. Read More

 

Putting aside whether Clarence broke either laws or ethics protocols...........yes or no........SC justices should adhere to the same code of ethics as all federal judges?

 

No.
Federal law requires judges, including supreme court justices, recuse themselves from any matter “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned," but unlike other judges and federal employees, the court has no formal ethics code.

 

To probe further, should there be an enforcement mechanism when supreme court justices refuse to recuse themselves from any matter “in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned?"