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

An oversight board cannot impeach anybody. How about a congress oversight board? A president oversight board?

 

Get real. Do you really not understand the federal government isn't a cesspool of corruption through and through? What do you think we'd find if we actually investigated the Pelosi and Biden crime families?

 

You might need a constitutional amendment if the Board had unilateral power to remove members of the SC. But you don’t need one if the Board simply observes and reports to Congress.

 

Simple question. Should there be a remedy, short of impeachment, to keep SC justices from breaking ethics rules? Even, god forbid, if that justice is a conservative?

 

Yes. You are very likely right. But this couple of creeps think themselves above the law and are not afraid to carry out their corruption in public.

Worst thing is that maybe they ARE above the law. Because there is one political party now that has decided that people who are high enough up in government should never be prosecuted so long as they are Republicans. And the other, so far, does not appear to be pushing back hard enough against that. Which, if We The People allow to continue, it's likely to end in bi-partisan corruption... all in public... and the likes of which we have never seen. I'm sure people in high positions of government from BOTH parties would surely like that.

We already have many of the followers of the Republican Party doing everything they can to get us to "look the other way". So the people who would have once fought against this has greatly diminished.

 

Off topic question. Are you a fan of Deadwood?

 

There is already a remedy. I'm sorry you don't like it.

 

Refusing to answer the question asked speaks volumes.

 

The new GOP excuse for unethical SC judge behavior, with a clear conflict of interest: Just meeting with rich friends. How far has Trumpism pulled the GOP down? Of course, if their party leader is an unethical, potentially criminal, scumbag, it is no wonder that all kinds of abhorrent behavior by politicians and judges are excused, or even celebrated, as long as they advance the Trumpist agenda.

 

Sounds like you're talking about Bill Clinton.

 

Sounds like you don't want to address the matter at hand.

 

Thomas is from their "tribe" go anything he does gets a pass. Just like Dear Leader.

 

That still violates the separation of powers. The court could simply rule it's unconstitutional and there's nothing anyone could do about it.

 

What's the matter at hand?

 

No kidding.

There is already a code of ethics federal judges must adhere to. Just not SC justices. That needs to change.

 

What question again? There is a remedy. You don't like the current one. That speaks volumes. I don't see a need to change or otherwise adopt an extra constitutional measure, that is your assertion to support. Asked and answered.

 

You supported nuking the filibuster. And now you're crying about it? Rich,.... Irony.... LMAO

 

And let you get away with your selective outrage? Not a chance! I'll call you on it every time.

 

How does that violate the separation of powers? Congress has the power under the constitution to to remove Supreme Court justices from office. That is the check that congress has over the court.

 

I don't know. Maybe OK. Are you sure your looking for a ethics board and not a disagreeable ruling board?? Who decides what are unacceptable ethics? What do they do about it?

 

does anyone actually believe those whining about Justice Thomas really care about this--or are they soiling their panties over his decision in BRUEN?

 

wokeflakes want Biden to put another affirmative action twit on the court who hates anything conservative, Christian Capitalist or White

 

I sincerely do not understand your outrage. They have taken joint family trips for many years, and there has not been a requirement to report such trips unless something relative to those friends were coming before the Supreme Court. Nothing indicates that these trips have been a hidden secret.

You seem to be assuming that there is something untoward going on here, but the notion of close family friends taking joint family trips together ( which is what this has been) for decades is certainly a believable scenario, especially when there is not anything specific to this person that was before the court. I guess you are assuming that them going on vacation somehow equates to him getting Thomas to vote how he wants. In truth, Thomas is an originalist, and as an originalist, it is not a mystery where he is going to fall on any issue. I have seen not one thing in his voting pattern that would indicate that he has veered away from being an originalist. It strikes me as stupid that this billionaire would do this to create access to Thomas just so that he can assure that Thomas continues being an originalist. It really does not make one lick of sense to me. What could possibly be the angle to this alleged bribery?

For you to take this one step further and take this down the path of somehow being related to Trump is an even bigger mystery. I would expect such a thing from the OP because well that is what he does, but I would not expect that logic from you.

In contrast, when I see something like Hunter Biden being paid millions of dollars to sit on the board of a foreign energy company when he has zero experience in energy and doesn't even speak the language, I cannot fathom anything BUT access to his father being the impetus for such a position. That to me is undeniably unethical. There is just not a credible alternative explanation other than access to the Vice President that makes any sense whatsoever.

While I am not trying to create a whataboutism, I do believe that the contrast holds relevance. While people can lie, there is a difference if the lie could possibly be believable or not. The Thomas explanation can very well be legit, but the Hunter Biden explanation really could not, at least not within the bounds of reasonableness. I suspect you don't have such a problem with the Hunter Biden position, and how that position is inextricably linked to his father.

 

Hey, nobody would have a problem with a "joint family trip", if Thomas had paid for his own expenses. Since he didn't, this amounts to a gift, which should be disclosed -- he didn't disclose, I wonder why? Why is it that I, as a lowly university professor, have to disclose such gifts, but a SC justice does not? Something is rotten in the state of Denmark. And you excusing it only shows you partisanship in this matter. I know you are too smart to not actually see this as unethical. But, it's your side, soo..

As to Hunter, if he has done something illegal, throw him in jail. I'd have no problems with it.

 

Have you not seen today's further explanation?
Justice Clarence Thomas explains failure to report trips paid for by conservative billionaire (cnbc.com)

The rules have changed in the last month, and he has every intention of following those new rules. Yesterdays hit piece did not make that clear. They falsely made it sound like he was outside of the rules when he was not.


Have you made any angry posts about your incredulous skepticism about Hunters situation? I suspect not, yet his situation and its inextricable link to his father is hard to describe as anything other than undeniably corrupt, where Thomas has a highly plausible explanation, in addition to it being hard to fathom what would be the benefit of courting a reliably originalist USSC justice for decades. That would be like bribing Trump to push legislation to build a border wall. What would be the point?

 

It certainly presents a conflict between the legislative and judicial branches of government, The Supreme Court is created by the Constitution, the Legislative branch creates the lower courts. The legislature does have the power of impeachment but Articles of Impeachment have been brought against a SCJ only once and he was acquitted by the Senate