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

Thanks. Simply wonderful. And cool air in Houston is almost always welcome, Uri was a bit much though.

McConnell, perhaps he did use Trump, but at what price?

There was some sort of little pow-wow the RNC held with Trump, 2Q15 I think it was, largely over his threat to run as an independent iirc.

I do wonder though that you may be among those perfectly reasonable folks that seem to think that, well, I am struggling to find the right words to describe it succinctly.

Someday, of course, the United States as we now know it will end.

A gradual progression of this has already occurred, painfully slowly for folks brought to these shores under the aegis of supporting crop farming in the Southern United States.

Where I wonder though do all of these Trump supporters imagine the US will be post another four years of this guy at the helm?

McConnell, will his surprise if such an event unfolds be a sufficient balm for you?

 

Which part of the Constitution gives the Scotus the authority to invalidate laws passed by the Congress and the President?

 

I try not to predict, especially (as Yogi Berra would have said) about the future. Having secured his legacy achievement, a soundly conservative SCOTUS, I suspect McConnell is using every lever he can get his hands on to quarantine Trump. We shall see.

 

I do not view the so called pro life revocation of RvW as in any way conservative, so maybe we disagree on that. It seems unlikely to me that McConnell is proactively seeking to restrict a second term for DJT. He had his chance and like Jack Sparrow he waived at it as it passed him by....

 

Due to the power of judicial review, the SCOTUS can declare any law passed and signed by the president unconstitutional.


https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...~:text=The best-known power of,Madison (1803).


The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803).


In this case, the Court had to decide whether an Act of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus (legal orders compelling government officials to act in accordance with the law). A suit was brought under this Act, but the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution did not permit the Court to have original jurisdiction in this matter. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that an Act of Congress that is contrary to the Constitution could not stand. In subsequent cases, the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

 

There was no ethics violation. If you think the giver of those trips did it for personal gain, then explain it. You blame him for poor ethics because he is conservative, not because he is unethical.

 

Revocation of RvW was not necessarily pro-life. It merely returned the question to the states. That strikes me as conservative.
As for MM vs DJT, that battle plays out in candidate selection meetings away from the cameras.

 

Absolutely corrupt that a Justice would not recuse themselves from voting on a topic in which their wife is an activist. I don't know if it's illegal, but most definitely corrupt.

 

They passed new reporting requirements last month, were you news stories not so bias'd perhaps they would have state that, which is where some reporter trying to make a name for themselves discovered Thomas has a rich best friend and reported the guy pays for Thomas to vacation with him once a year with Thomas was NOT required to report previously. A best friend who has never had a case before the SCOTUS.

So what exactly is the big deal here?

And as the WSJ put it describing the original breaking story.............

The Smearing of Clarence Thomas
The left gins up another phony ethics assault to tarnish the Supreme Court.

......The piece is loaded with words and phrases intended to convey that this is all somehow disreputable: “superyacht”; “luxury trips”; “exclusive California all-male retreat”; “sprawling ranch”; “private chefs”; “elegant accommodation”; “opulent lodge”; “lavishing the justice with gifts.” And more.

Adjectival overkill is the method of bad polemicists who don’t have much to report. The ProPublica writers suggest that Justice Thomas may have violated ethics rules, and they quote a couple of cherry-picked ethicists to express their dismay.

But it seems clear that the Court’s rules at the time all of this happened did not require that gifts of personal hospitality be disclosed. This includes the private plane trips. ProPublica fails to make clear to readers that the U.S. Judicial Conference recently changed its rules to require more disclosure. The new rules took effect last month."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/claren...ow-1c4c2f41?mod=opinion_trending_now_opn_pos5

 

I take a small, very small degree of solace in knowing McTreason's dual acts of unthinkable duplicity, leading to Roe being overturned, in all likelihood caused him to be denied regaining the Senate's leadership position. I have no doubt he will happily go to his grave knowing his reputation is forever tarnished in exchange for forcing the tyranny of the minority on the American public. His lack of respect for democracy and the will of the people are his legacy.
Were he to be confronted with such commentary he would undoubtedly smile sheepishly, knowing everything I wrote is true......being quite proud of it.

 

Each of us is accountable as an individual. Thomas's spouse was not a party to any case before the court. Nothing illegal, nothing corrupt.

 

McConnell is, IMHO, the one undeniably great figure in Washington in recent decades. He warned Harry Reid and the Dems that their own shortsighted actions would cause them regret later, and he saw to it that they got what they had earned. Into the bargain, he cemented a firm conservative majority on the SCOTUS. Trump and inferior Trump-backed candidates cost him the Senate leadership in 2022; I doubt he will face a similar disadvantage in 2024.

 

I know you aren't naive enough to think McTurtle needed a pretense for doing what he would have done all along regarding the end of the filibuster for SC nominees. So why keep using it?

 

On the contrary. Had Reid not opened the door, McConnell would not have walked through it. I think you are quite wrong on this point.

 

"I know you aren't naive enough to think McTurtle needed a pretense for doing what he would have done all along"............I stand corrected.

Even if a move like McConnell’s had been contemplated by Senators in the past, it had never been tried. Aside from the lack of historical precedent, the blockade was arguably unconstitutional.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...onal-blockade-of-garland-poisoned-subsequent/

 

McConnell acted in accordance with the principle laid down by then-Senator Joe Biden.
Joe Biden in 1992: No nominations to the Supreme Court ...

Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com › 2016/02/22


Feb 22, 2016 — Grassley set out what he called “Biden Rules”: There ought to be no presidential Supreme Court nominations in an election year, and if there is ...

 

Mitch's duplicity is rubbing off on you.

The Duplicity of Mitch McConnell
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/9/5/1793634/-The-Duplicity-of-Mitch-McConnell

 

So you wrote to tell us that you don't understands what "legal ethics" means. Duly noted...

 

Sorry, but the only duplicity is among those who try to unsay what was said.

 

There is no legal ethics issue.

 

Congress Members Announce Hearing, Demand Chief Justice Investigate Clarence Thomas’ Trips

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday announced plans to hold a hearing in the coming days “regarding the need to restore confidence in the Supreme Court’s ethical standards,” citing ProPublica’s reporting on over 20 years’ worth of luxury travel accepted by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas from a billionaire Republican megadonor.

The planned hearing is detailed in a letter to Chief Justice John Roberts and follows comments made by the committee chair, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, last week in which he called for an “enforceable code of conduct” for the justices.

If “the Court does not resolve this issue on its own, the Committee will consider legislation to resolve it,” the letter said.
https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-john-roberts-investigation-crow

Thomas's overt corruption must be put to an end.

 

It is very conservative. Conservatives value the constitution, including the 10th amendment. Liberals try to find ways to work around the constitution.

 

Imagine the unintended consequences of such legislation. It boggles the mind. People can accept gifts from family, for instance, but cannot accept them from friends? Why not handle like the private sector. Gifts for the personal or organizational gain of the giver are taboo. Otherwise they are OK. I would accept that this is corruption if the giver were gaining something financial from the gift. Provide some evidence.

 

Oh no, the Daily Kos. No partisanship there.

 

No, no Sirrah, no issues here Sirrah!

Archetypes are archetypes for a reason....