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

So we need leftist dictators to overrule the supreme court?

 

The problems are two, what to do now about him and how to return the Supreme Court to its former untainted respectability. Hopefully the first part takes care of itself and he "retires" without need of blatant intentions. I'd give it a little time.
The second point is far more important. The Supreme Court no longer has the respect that it once held I believe because of the flagrant extremism that has been caused by the Senate's failure to elect judges both sides can live with. I'll repeat what I said earlier, start with the Senate.
New old rules.
Go back to a 60 vote majority to be confirmed forcing presidents to go more mainstream in their selections because they'll need crossover votes. The last president used that change to push through a puppet clown and a radical right wing fanatic. The current countered with a more liberal than usual candidate himself.
Go back to normal recesses. This horse hockey of not allowing Obama even a recess appointment for a year by never going on recess as was done is very anti spirit of the law. Having someone go in the Senate hall, bang a gavel opening a session and then banging again seconds later saying the day is closed is not the senate working and was only done to prevent a recess appointment. Recess appointments are temporary and by law can't last over a year but allows the courts to function fully in the absence of the Senate doing the same.
Finally, a nomination should be allowed to progress to open debate and a vote. Again, Obama's last nominee could not get on the.docket for a hearing because of one man. For all we know the senate could.have voted 99-1 in favor because the candidate was very middle of the road maybe a tiny bit left but clearly presented as an olive branch nominee. One man prevented even a discussion of his qualifications because it was too close, nearly.a.year,.to an.electioon. Yet that same man four years later pushed through a 50-50 vote days before an election. No president has ever, ever presented a nominee that close to an election let alone the Senate confirm the nominee.

Clean up the.Senate process and return the Supreme Court to being Supreme again.
The Thomas issue would.have easily taken care of itself before, I hope that it will now.

 

Yes, Mitch McConnell is going to Hell for his destruction of the Supreme Court. The 49 senators who helped him should be praying there is no Hell and trying like mad to correct their sins. Destroying the one part of government we used to have faith in is a one way ticket.

 

Fine, then no need for an oversight board.

 

He has acknowledged them.

 

Thanks for throwing the amazingly obvious hypocrisy they engage in right in front of their faces.

 

By the same code of conduct and disciplinary entity that regulates the behavior of lower court judges.

 

Who picks the board members? Do the Democrats pick them? Do the Republicans pick them all? How does this work so it isn't a political sham with no other purpose than to change the makeup of the court?

 

I don't think you're following this conversation very well. I said that the sole responsibility of the oversight board would be to observe and report to Congress.

That's fine as long as the oversight board only has power to observe and report.

 

That's just it: the board will selectively observe and report. There's no way that doesn't happen.

 

Funny how you make up scenarios for why punishment of ethics violations won't work, can't be done, can't be done fairly, etc., etc., but seem reluctant to admit to the obvious need for violations to be addressed.

 

Anyone who think this won't be used as a political weapon is living on another planet.

Besides, you still can't get past the fact that it's unconstitutional.

 

“At the end of the day there are no consequences for [Thomas’] actions,” Sherman, who has testified multiple times before Congress on the subject of judicial ethics, said in an interview. “These facts continue to highlight the need for the court to have a binding code of conduct, a process for discipline — separate and apart from impeachment — and a transparent and independent process for recusals.”

Numerous legal experts have joined the growing calls for the court to voluntarily impose some accountability.

“At a time when public institutions are redoubling their efforts to improve the public’s trust, we maintain that a formal, written Code, offering a uniform set of principles that justices and the public alike would look to for guidance, would benefit the Court and the nation,” a group of legal scholars wrote to Roberts last year.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-with-clarence-thomas-revelations/ar-AA19B7gC

 

Acknowleged what? That he took vacations with a friend? I do the same thing.

 

Fine. Amend the the Constitution.

Did you people skip civics class, or what?

 

Yes, that he had vacations paid for...........In 2019, shortly after the court shared its final opinion of the term, Clarence and Ginni Thomas took off on Crow’s private jet for a nine-day vacation in Indonesia aboard the donor’s yacht — a trip that cost more than $500,000, according to ProPublica.............by a conservative donor to conservative causes and didn't report them.

 

Not necessary.

 

It is if you want it to be done right. But, rule of law doesn't mean **** to you people. Does it?

 

His intentions are obvious to me and it is more than ridiculous. It is dangerous.

 

I didn't ask for nor do I need any help from you. Be mindful of the concept of separate but equal branches of government. Who would monitor and report the private events in the lives of justices? Ethics issues are internal to every branch. Oversight does not extend to other branches. I don't view any of this as an ethics problem. I would see it as a partisan problem.

 

I don't know that at all. If there is a rule or law preventing an activity then it is a different issue. When I worked for a large corporation I could have been fired for accepting such a thing from a supplier. But it certainly wouldn't be an issue if I accepted something like this from someone unrelated to the business in which I worked. If the provider of the trips were in the midst of legal action being heard by the supreme court it would be an ethics issue for conflict of interest. There should be nothing barring a supreme court justice or anyone else from accepting gifts when there is no self interest on the part of the giver. Prove that the giver was looking for something from the justice and I will agree with you. Otherwise it is a free country, or at least used to be.

I went on a junket once to Japan paid by one of our suppliers. The reason I went is that the president of the company said we should be there and he couldn't go. He asked me to go in his place. I went with my wife. It was lovely. No conflict of interest. The head of the company asked me to go. You are criticizing the justice without knowing anything about the background.

 

We can talk about your concerns, if you specify what they are, and tell me what evidence underpins them.

 

I'll add the idea that the separate but equal doctrine means SC justices get a pass on obvious ethics violations, further eroding public confidence in that body, to the list of excuses the board's conservatives have put forth to do nothing about Thomas's numerous indiscretions.

 

If you want an ethics board of the Supreme Court I suggest adding an ethics board of the Senate that selects the Supreme Court.

 

The Senate only confirms nominees selected by the prez.